Withdrawal is the answer to most axiological problems concerning humans

schopenhauer1

Philosophy often contains bold and provocative views of the world because, by its very nature, it forces us to examine the world, existence, and ourselves in ways that may not align with common cultural views or sensibilities. It may not even conform to "common sense" per se. Arguably, Plato's Republic is one of the most defining works in Western philosophy. Many so-called "conservative" thinkers want Plato and the Ancients to be part of a holistic classical education for youth. Yet, Plato's vision of society was a radical one, more aligned with Marxism, fascism, and educated elitism than with religious conservatives concerned with private property, religion, and "home and hearth." I am not saying this to be contrarian or because I necessarily agree with Plato's vision. I mention this as a preface for bold and, at first, seemingly outlandish ideas. If we value philosophy, we value ideas that "wake us up" from various delusions we take to be true but are really just comfortable.

That being said, I claim that the best course of action in almost all cases as a human to comport with the best life, is to live a life of withdrawal. It's quite the opposite to civic duty and engagement. It's quite the opposite of the modern belief that socialization is necessary because of "flourishing" and we are a "social animal". Rather, due to the nature of animal/human relations, it is mostly struggle when two or more beings interact. I take Schopenhauer's idea of Will as true (even if metaphorically, not necessarily as metaphysic proper). Schopenhauer keenly realized that whilst the common stance is that civic duty, and social engagement is often toted as the pinnacle of "flourishing", that indeed this is a fools-errand, a delusion, that actually leads to more misery in the end. True "flourishing" comes from resignation, withdrawal from engagement with others. Social engagement leads to more attachments, and more conflicts, and more frustrations, litigations, manifestations, allegations, contortions,
and complications, in short, drama and disappointments, all of which serve only to entangle the individual further in the suffering. Withdrawal is the first step in peaceful denial-of-will. Everything from being born, and creating more drama comes from engagement.

The next step is limiting food intake to a minimum. Excessive consumption is yet another extension of the Will’s relentless demands, driving us to seek pleasure and comfort in physical satisfaction that is, at best, fleeting and, at worst, enslaving. By reducing food to the bare essentials, we liberate ourselves from the cycle of indulgence, craving, and dependency that distracts us from a clearer, more tranquil state of being.

The ultimate step is complete abstention from food, moving beyond mere limitation of intake. Eating fuels the Will’s endless cycle of craving and satisfaction, tethering us to desires that perpetuate suffering. By choosing abstention, we reject this cycle altogether, severing our dependence on physical needs that only serve to bind us to the body's relentless demands.

However, being that food limitation and bodily starvation are near impossible for most, withdrawal is the next best thing. It is not going to solve the ultimate problem of disturbance laid upon us by existence itself, but it limits overall drama and harm caused to others. Withdrawal is preventative, but also a statement about not allowing oneself to inflict harms upon others. The key is to ensure that any contact is purely transactional- just enough to meet the basic requirements of existence, without letting it spiral into further emotional entanglements.

javra

Withdrawal is preventative, but also a statement about not allowing oneself to inflict harms upon others. The key is to ensure that any contact is purely transactional- just enough to meet the basic requirements of existence, without letting it spiral into further emotional entanglements. — schopenhauer1

Is this to say that Agape, Philia, and the like are wrongs to be avoided and shunned? After all, if there for example is no "emotional entanglements" of friendship, then there is no possibility of undergoing the suffering of being betrayed by those you trusted as friends - nor is there the possibility of inflicting such wrongs upon others.

Not my cup of tea, this general outlook. But it does appear entailed by your conclusion: friendship is a vice rather than a virtue. Am I wrong in this inference?

schopenhauer1

Oh, and if anyone posts Simon and Garfunkel's "I Am a Rock," don’t even bother- I’ve already called that cliché. You can try to romanticize being a "social animal" all you want, but at least the rock knows that peace comes from detachment. So, cheers to embracing solitude- and not just as some overused trope, but as a legit path to freedom from the madness.

javra

I guess that answers that. Thanks

schopenhauer1

Is this to say that Agape, Philia, and the like are wrongs to be avoided and shunned? — javra

Philia and Agape may be actually more acutely understood through withdrawal. Philia by way of not imposing more harms than necessary. Agape would be enhanced because one is showing compassion by not engaging. The delusion is that engagement means necessarily more love. In fact, it can be quite the opposite.

After all, if there for example is no "emotional entanglements" of friendship, then there is no possibility of undergoing the suffering of being betrayed by those you trusted as friends - nor is there the possibility of inflicting such wrongs upon others. — javra

Why would you want this??

Not my cup of tea, this general outlook. But it does appear entailed by your conclusion: friendship is a vice rather than a virtue. Am I wrong in this inference? — javra

It is a vice in that it causes more harm.

Tzeentch

Cook something, let's eat. — Buddha

schopenhauer1

↪Tzeentch

He only skipped desert that day.

T Clark

That being said, I claim that the best course of action in almost all cases as a human to comport with the best life, is to live a life of withdrawal. It's quite the opposite to civic duty and engagement. It's quite the opposite of the modern belief that socialization is necessary because of "flourishing" and we are a "social animal". Rather, due to the nature of animal/human relations, it is mostly struggle when two or more beings interact. — schopenhauer1

This reads a lot more like a psychiatric diagnosis all gussied up with philosophical cosmetics rather than philosophy itself.

Social engagement leads to more attachments, and more conflicts, and more frustrations, litigations, manifestations, allegations, contortions,
and complications, in short, drama and disappointments, all of which serve only to entangle the individual further in the suffering. — schopenhauer1

As I often end up saying in any discussion with you, many of us, most of us, don't see the world and relationships this way. This is your personal, idiosyncratic reaction to your own personal idiosyncratic problems and your solution is your personal, idiosyncratic solution. Doctoring it up with Schopenhauer doesn't change that.

The ultimate step is complete abstention from food, moving beyond mere limitation of intake. Eating fuels the Will’s endless cycle of craving and satisfaction, tethering us to desires that perpetuate suffering. By choosing abstention, we reject this cycle altogether, severing our dependence on physical needs that only serve to bind us to the body's relentless demands. — schopenhauer1

You usually say that you aren't proposing suicide, but now it appears you are.

Outlander

Sure, the simpler a life one lives, that is to say the less social affairs one has, the less room for drama or unsolicited burden. Why the choice of the word "withdrawal" though? Why not enhanced engagement in one's inner focus, self-betterment, and private works in the comfort of willful solitude? I suppose if one craves socialization, as most normal people do, at least every now and then, it is a willful, conscious act of deprivation. It doesn't have to be. I can't think of the PC version for the following quote so I will just say it does the mind and soul (or psyche) wonders to occupy oneself with true vocational purpose. Example, I have an ungodly amount of computer-related work to complete this season. It brings me joy when I complete a portion or bring a functionality of the software I'm creating to fruition. It also brings me joy, when I'm feeling a bit burnt out staring at thousands of lines of code for hours or get stuck on a particular area or simply need a break to tab over to TPF and see if there's a reasonable entry-level discussion that interests me enough to participate in, like this one. It's about finding balance.

By reducing food to the bare essentials, we liberate ourselves from the cycle of indulgence, craving, and dependency that distracts us from a clearer, more tranquil state of being. — schopenhauer1

Do we really? Willpower begins and ends in the mind. It's about setting reasonable goals and limitations you can expect yourself to follow through on, I'd say. For lunch today, I plan to bake a frozen fish filet. Nothing fancy, by any means, but nutritious enough to provide my body what it needs to focus and feel well enough to complete what I have in front of me. Food is an interesting thing as nutrition should be part of what one includes "bare essentials" for any sort of quality existence. I could easily open a packet of tuna and a roll of crackers and call that lunch. Nothing wrong with that. Perhaps you mean excess and extravagance, such as a three-course meal with lobster, buttered potatoes, and desert, for example. Or whatever one's "favorite" foods happen to be. Diet and fasting have been purported to yield benefits physical and beyond of course, so you may be correct. I still hold the mental component to unhealthy cycles of physical action or inaction to be paramount, regardless if whatever the physical object of ones concern is in reach and easily-accessible or not.

The ultimate step is complete abstention from food, moving beyond mere limitation of intake. Eating fuels the Will’s endless cycle of craving and satisfaction, tethering us to desires that perpetuate suffering. By choosing abstention, we reject this cycle altogether, severing our dependence on physical needs that only serve to bind us to the body's relentless demands. — schopenhauer1

That one's a bit too esoteric for me I'm afraid. Sounds a bit fatal, frankly. If that's what it takes to reach your desired state of being, I'd question your sense of reason in regards to what you want out of life and how to best go about obtaining such.

Withdrawal is preventative, but also a statement about not allowing oneself to inflict harms upon others. The key is to ensure that any contact is purely transactional- just enough to meet the basic requirements of existence, without letting it spiral into further emotional entanglements. — schopenhauer1

Different strokes for different folks I guess. It is true many eastern religions and other forms of thinking hold value in solitude or "cutting oneself off from the world" ie. the monks of olde. It's just not feasible for most people in modern society who aren't exceedingly well off. You can remove the object of temptation but the underlying "unwellness" (if that's what you consider such) would undoubtedly remain, at least in some form, wouldn't it?

javra

Why would you want this?? — schopenhauer1

Given your shpiel, I can only assume this is an honest question. To answer honestly: because friendship reduces suffering. I'm pretty sure this is supported by the empirical sciences as well, something to do with dopamine and other neurotransmitters, improved longevity and quality of life, and some other such things. There's also the having help in times of need, to boot.

As to the risks, a news-flash: you risk your health by living. I already know your general conclusion, life is therefore bad. To be nice and polite, most life, humans included, disagree, with me included.

BTW, isn't this thread a bit hypocritical? You're doing the opposite of withdrawal by posting it.

180 Proof

↪schopenhauer1

:yawn:

[M]any of us, most of us, don't see the world and relationships this way. This is your personal, idiosyncratic reaction to your own personal idiosyncratic problems and your solution is your personal, idiosyncratic solution. Doctoring it up with Schopenhauer doesn't change that. — T Clark

:up: :up:

schopenhauer1

↪T Clark

↪180 Proof

When you are done ad homming and put your philosopher pants on, I'll wait for you. For now, ignore.

schopenhauer1

Given your shpiel, I can only assume this is an honest question. To answer honestly: because friendship reduces suffering. I'm pretty sure this is supported by the empirical sciences as well, something to do with dopamine and other neurotransmitters, improved longevity and quality of life, and some other such things. There's also the having help in times of need, to boot. — javra

You would have to show that the negative dramas, et al that come from engaging with friendships would ever be more than the dopamine supposedly received from these engagements. But I don't need to look at data to understand how these engagements DO indeed cause more strife and conflict.

schopenhauer1

I suppose if one craves socialization, as most normal people do, at least every now and then, it is a willful, conscious act of deprivation. — Outlander

More this than anything. My assumption is people are already overly engaged, so this is the suggestion. I guess you can frame it "withdrawing" vs. the ascetic "already withdrawn". It is mainly to highlight the social aspect is very much in the background and a sort of temptation to pursue.

I can't think of the PC version for the following quote so I will just say it does the mind and soul (or psyche) wonders to occupy oneself with true vocational purpose. Example, I have an ungodly amount of computer-related work to complete this season. It brings me joy when I complete a portion or bring a functionality of the software I'm creating to fruition. It also brings me joy, when I'm feeling a bit burnt out staring at thousands of lines of code for hours or get stuck on a particular area or simply need a break to tab over to TPF and see if there's a reasonable entry-level discussion that interests me enough to participate in, like this one. It's about finding balance. — Outlander

Eh, withdrawal can also be from what you describe your avocation/vocation which you pursue. If it brings you joy, cool. Suppose the code was deleted mistakenly, and all your hard work was wiped out? Suppose your boss/owner rejected your code as insufficient, inelegant, and trash? Suppose they rejected every attempt, even if you are convinced it is genius? Anyways, strife can be found anywhere, just as much as joy. Pursuits of joy are temporary. That's the point of Schopenhauer makes of goal-seeking, attachments, and all of it.

That one's a bit too esoteric for me I'm afraid. Sounds a bit fatal, frankly. If that's what it takes to reach your desired state of being, I'd question your sense of reason in regards to what you want out of life and how to best go about obtaining such. — Outlander

It is fatal. The limits in eating is meant only as a step towards not eating.

You can remove the object of temptation but the underlying "unwellness" (if that's what you consider such) would undoubtedly remain, at least in some form, wouldn't it? — Outlander

Indeed, hence the final step. Will is ever-pervasive.

180 Proof

↪schopenhauer1

Well, since you've ignored my post in your other recent thread ...

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/944417

... it's no big loss. Oh, btw, try some philosophizing yourself for a change. :smirk:

schopenhauer1

↪180 Proof

Leave me alone. Fuck off.

javra

↪schopenhauer1

You're telling us to withdraw while not withdrawing. I again call this out as hypocrisy.

Is there some coherent reasoning for why this is not the case?

If not, and the facts of the matter are such, then why should I entertain your hypocritical reasoning?

(Apropos, if the facts of the matter are such, then this is not an "attack of the person" but an attack of the very reasoning addressing what we ought to do.)

180 Proof

↪schopenhauer1

:rofl:

schopenhauer1

You're telling us to withdraw while not withdrawing. I again call this out as hypocrisy. — javra

:up: Yep, it is indeed doing the opposite. I am showing you what not to do then.

If not, and the facts of the matter are such, then why should I entertain your hypocritical reasoning? — javra

Schopenhauer was also a hypocrite you can say, but he was right.

(I also ate today, against my better judgement).

T Clark

When you are done ad homming and put your philosopher pants on, I'll wait for you. For now, ignore. — schopenhauer1

I always find it annoying when someone misuses the phrase “ad hominem.”

schopenhauer1

I always find it annoying when someone misuses the phrase “ad hominem.” — T Clark

Cool

schopenhauer1

↪javra

Oh and to also be a demonstration of what I mean.. I am now pissed off at one poster, annoyed that people aren't engaging with it the way I was hoping, and my blood pressure is up. Definitely shouldn't be attached to this forum/thread. So I am willing to be a test case in real time ;).

javra

↪schopenhauer1

Maybe if you didn't promote the worship of a nihilistic death as ultimate salvation, and this ad nauseam, I'd then find some reason to take you seriously ... I get it, to you friendship is an evil. OK.

Outlander

Suppose the code was deleted mistakenly, and all your hard work was wiped out? — schopenhauer1

That would be quite awful, yes. I do keep backups but I get your point. I would be sad. Angry, distraught, the works. Thankfully, or regrettably (not sure), much of my time was spent "figuring things out" and learning along the way so reconstructing it wouldn't be as daunting as one might envision. But I get your point.

Anyways, strife can be found anywhere, just as much as joy. Pursuits of joy are temporary. That's the point of Schopenhauer makes of goal-seeking, attachments, and all of it. — schopenhauer1

Joy is often short-lived, yes. But that is no reason to abandon all pursuit of desire. I could be terribly mistaken but I'd otherwise bet you have a great many things to be thankful for, things others would kill for, even if these things are relatively common to the degree you have lost (or never had) appreciation for them. Perhaps you should bear in mind those around the world who have things much worse off than you and not let your relatively good fortune to have been in vain. Ironically, Schopenhauer had a goal and attachment to write a book, several I'd imagine, so that's kind of an interesting position to hold. I suppose it remains valid if you really want it to.

schopenhauer1

I could be terribly mistaken but I'd otherwise bet you have a great many things to be thankful for, things others would kill for, even if these things are relatively common to the degree you have lost (or never had) appreciation for them. Perhaps you should bear in mind those around the world who have things much worse off than you and not let your relatively good fortune to have been in vain. — Outlander

I always found this pretty telling:

Benatar raises the issue of whether humans inaccurately estimate the true quality of their lives, and has cited three psychological phenomena which he believes are responsible for this:

Tendency towards optimism: we have a positively distorted perspective of our lives in the past, present, and future.
Adaptation: we adapt to our circumstances, and if they worsen, our sense of well-being is lowered in anticipation of those harmful circumstances, according to our expectations, which are usually divorced from the reality of our circumstances.
Comparison: we judge our lives by comparing them to those of others, ignoring the negatives which affect everyone to focus on specific differences. And due to our optimism bias, we mostly compare ourselves to those worse off, to overestimate the value of our own well-being.

He concludes:

The above psychological phenomena are unsurprising from an evolutionary perspective. They militate against suicide and in favour of reproduction. If our lives are quite as bad as I shall still suggest they are, and if people were prone to see this true quality of their lives for what it is, they might be much more inclined to kill themselves, or at least not to produce more such lives. Pessimism, then, tends not to be naturally selected
— Benatar article

Outlander

Tendency towards optimism: we have a positively distorted perspective of our lives in the past, present, and future. — Benatar article

Well with all due respect to the benighted scholar (bear with me while I bring up other people again), thousands of years ago the average person had to deal with threats of invasion, plagues, an abundance of disease, terrible low-quality shacks, frost-filled winters and/or brutal, sweltering summers, no cold drinks, sorry excuses for nutrition, terrible corruption via class discrimination perpetrated by unscrupulous "upperclassmen", bloodthirsty highwaymen, torture chambers as prisons, just to name a few things modern man no longer has to face. So, pardon me for saying but, yes, modern man has a correct perspective of optimism in his daily life. Why shouldn't he? We live in some sort of futuristic heavenly utopia, if someone from said time in history could step through the doorway of time into our own. It's easy to forget how fortunate we have it now. You've never been in love before? Never had "the best day ever"? Sure you have! You can't tell me in your best moments in life you weren't as giddy as a schoolgirl with all the optimism of a starry-eyed young prince. Things happen, we grow older, see the world for what it is, rather become aware of what we were once ignorant of, and it weighs heavy to those intelligent who think and feel, of course. That doesn't mean great delights and better times are not yet to come. I mean, again, look how far civilization has come. There's nothing "distorted" about factual categorization and accounting of positive development.

Adaptation: we adapt to our circumstances, and if they worsen, our sense of well-being is lowered in anticipation of those harmful circumstances, according to our expectations, which are usually divorced from the reality of our circumstances. — Benatar article

So basically, the hedonic treadmill. A noted phenomenon, yes. What of it? I still double down on the "failure to see positive possibility and future change (even if it not be enjoyed while one is alive)", despite the odds being less than favorable in many a circumstance.

It's a cruel and unforgiving world largely governed by primal nature where the selfish and abominable seem to come out on top time and time again. I'll give you that. And yet, a world full of warmth and bliss, for those fortunate. Not everyone who achieved these rewards did so by ill-begotten ways and means. What of them? It's not an unreasonable belief to hold life as "more trouble than it's worth", not unreasonable at all. But you can't honestly tell me you didn't have at least a few moments or experiences you're glad to have had, can you? Of course not.

schopenhauer1

↪Outlander

At the end, it is a slow withdrawal from the world in general. Social entanglements bring strife and are one factor one can minimize.

L'éléphant

True "flourishing" comes from resignation, withdrawal from engagement with others. Social engagement leads to more attachments, and more conflicts, and more frustrations, litigations, manifestations, allegations, contortions,
and complications, in short, drama and disappointments, all of which serve only to entangle the individual further in the suffering. Withdrawal is the first step in peaceful denial-of-will. — schopenhauer1

Those are the monks. There are people who practice this way of living.

schopenhauer1

Those are the monks. There are people who practice this way of living. — L'éléphant

Indeed, they live a lifestyle more to this regard. The hermit more so.

Apustimelogist

Sounds very tiresome to me. I would consider it if there was some good evidence that this would make life much better.

schopenhauer1

Sounds very tiresome to me. I would consider it if there was some good evidence that this would make life much better. — Apustimelogist

This is exactly the utilitarian approach Schopenhauer would point to as obfuscating the underlying problem. The drama and conflict that comes from relations with other people seem to solve a problem, when it actually adds. True freedom comes within one's ability to stand solitude with oneself. You can't help being an enculturated being (you learned language, a way of life), but after this, you can restrict your interactions, and sources of unnecessary sufferings that come about from it. Again, it quite defiantly bucks against common views of socialization and flourishing. I fully recognize this and said so in the OP.

Withdrawal is the answer to most axiological problems concerning humans

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions