@Wayfarer @Tom Storm Also, as I said elsewhere, and will piss off a lot of people because it hits closest to home in their daily lives:

Tell someone on here who recently fell in love that existence is suffering. The hormones alone will lead them to (internally) violently resist. They just “won” and you are going to question that? Skip a few years and babies, and more pay from work, and a bit of status in society. You end up with grandkids and half the old timer posters on here giving you their quite middlebrow-everyday man’s workaday morals of something equivalent to Aristotle’s Golden Mean. At the most, they can give you “balance” in some Tao inspired koan. But it’s all to preserve that lifestyle. They cling to it, because if that was lost, a whole despair from a loss and attachment to a lifestyle and stability has gone away. Of course these posters oppose the kind of radical pessimism and antinatalism I speak of.

Our capacity for self-awareness of existence, has enormous capacity to open up the Suffering entailed in existence. — schopenhauer1

':

Quote from wiki entry on Zappfe: "I am not a pessimist. I am a nihilist. Namely, not a pessimist in the sense that I have upsetting apprehensions, but a nihilist in a sense that is not moral".

Why bother with it? How is it philosophy? Nihilism is the negation of philosophy. Not interested in discussing him.

Of course these posters oppose the kind of radical pessimism and antinatalism I speak of.

That description could well apply to me, now a grandparent and effectively retired from the workforce. It's not that I'm 'opposed' to pessimism and nihilism, but that it is pointless, even by its own admission.

Quote from wiki entry on Zappfe: "I am not a pessimist. I am a nihilist. Namely, not a pessimist in the sense that I have upsetting apprehensions, but a nihilist in a sense that is not moral".

Why bother with it? How is it philosophy? Nihilism is the negation of philosophy. Not interested in discussing him. — Wayfarer

Oh come now, this seems ideological bias. First off, I don't care what label people use, if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck.. And Zapffe is basically pessimism. Pessimisms have various aspects, but they simply need to have at their core a negative evaluation of existence. Thus, even Buddhism can be considered "pessimistic". I suppose "nihilistic" in your sense of the word, is being used as a label for philosophies that have no soteriology, contra what Buddhism/Hinduism/religions propose. That is to say, life might have some aspect of suffering inherent, but there is a "Way" to follow. Usually it's difficult, hardly attained for most, and provides some aspect of hope for the currently living. Even the great pessimist, Schopenhauer had some view of a soteriology- aesthetic contemplation, compassion, and asceticism were available to the degree to which certain characters had the capacity to tap into these forms of "denial of the Will". Certainly, Buddhism has the Eightfold Path, and Hinduism has various yogic schools leading to some form of "moksha" or freedom from dharmic cycles. Apostolic forms of Christianity have the Pauline doctrines of salvation "through Christ", Gnostic Christianity had salvation through various stages of Gnosis. Even a "this-worldly" based religion such as Judaism has a hope for a future Messianic Age, and World to Come and some form of repentance of the world through good deeds.

Why do you suppose it is important for you that there be a salvation of some sort? Why does this so-called "nihilist" (your version of this idiom) upset your sensibilities?

That description could well apply to me, now a grandparent and effectively retired from the workforce. It's not that I'm 'opposed' to pessimism and nihilism, but that it is pointless, even by its own admission. — Wayfarer

I think you are playing with words here. "Nihilism" again, is a shifty label that itself is pointless. Rather, how is it being used? What is being conveyed? It's not "useless" unless you feel there needs to be a "use", and that presupposes "something" about what you think philosophy must conclude, no?

There's a book I've been aware of for a long while, and Vervaeke frequently mentions in Awakening from the Meaning Crisis. It is Religion and Nothingness, by Kitaro Nishida. Nishida was a member of the Kyoto School which was a group of Japanese scholars who intensively studied Western philosophy and compared its insights with their native Zen tradition.

In Religion and Nothingness, Nishida critiques Nietzsche's nihilism as incomplete because it fails to fully realise the meaning of "absolute nothingness." Nishida appreciates Nietzsche's effort to reject metaphysical absolutes, such as God or the Platonic realm, and sees his proclamation of the "death of God" as a profound acknowledgment of the collapse of traditional values in Western culture. However, Nishida finds Nietzsche's response to this nihilism—embodied in the ideas of the Übermensch and the will to power—insufficient because it does not go beyond the duality of self-assertion and negation (or self-and-other).

For Nishida, Nietzsche’s nihilism remains trapped within the Western metaphysical framework of oppositional thinking, which understands nothingness as mere absence. In contrast, Nishida, drawing on Zen, sees "absolute nothingness" not as mere absence but as the ground of reality itself, 'the nothing which is everything'. This nothingness is dynamic and relational, allowing for the dissolution of dualities such as self and other, being and non-being. But realisation of emptiness involves a kind of death - 'dying to the known', as one teacher puts it - and the abandonment of self-concern.

It's not "useless" unless you feel there needs to be a "use", and that presupposes "something" about what you think philosophy must conclude, no? — schopenhauer1

Not useful in a utilitarian sense, but more in the sense of virtue being its own reward. Philosophy is love-wisdom - not the love of books about philosophy, although that's surely a part, but a state of love-wisdom, which I think is incompatible with the pessimism we're discussing. As you note, Schopenhauer himself was not ultimately pessimistic, although this seems to have escaped many of those who comment on him.

Why do you suppose it is important for you that there be a salvation of some sort? — schopenhauer1

Very flattering that you think I've invented the history of world religions.

"Nihilism" again, is a shifty label that itself is pointless. — schopenhauer1

But that is Zappfe's self-description, and you brought him up. Nihilism is variously the view that nothing matters, nothing is real, reality is empty appearance with nothing behind it, etc. In the Buddhist world, nihilism is the view that at death, the body returns to the elements and there are no consequences for actions taken in life.

In contrast, Nishida, drawing on Zen, sees "absolute nothingness" not as mere absence but as the ground of reality itself, 'the nothing which is everything'. This nothingness is dynamic and relational, allowing for the dissolution of dualities such as self and other, being and non-being. — Wayfarer

Just happened upon this. In its English format, is this supposed to in fact be "absolute nothingness" or "absolute no thingness". The two are by no means equivalent.

Yes, that's right - no-thing-ness, not a thing, neither this nor that (neti neti). Basic to the terminology of Mahāyāna and Vedanta. Since the Renaissance, Western thought has been characterized by a focus on objectivity, substantiality, and the reification of "things." This emphasis was cemented by Cartesian dualism, which sharply divided subject and object, and later by the rise of scientific materialism, which framed reality as a collection of discrete, independently existing entities. In this framework, being was often equated with "being a thing," obscuring more dynamic and relational understandings of existence (which is, however, now starting to burst through all the seams, so to speak.)

:up:

In Religion and Nothingness, Nishida critiques Nietzsche's nihilism as incomplete because it fails to fully realise the meaning of "absolute nothingness." Nishida appreciates Nietzsche's effort to reject metaphysical absolutes, such as God or the Platonic realm, and sees his proclamation of the "death of God" as a profound acknowledgment of the collapse of traditional values in Western culture. However, Nishida finds Nietzsche's response to this nihilism—embodied in the ideas of the Übermensch and the will to power—insufficient because it does not go beyond the duality of self-assertion and negation (or self-and-other). — Wayfarer

Just happened upon this. In its English format, is this supposed to in fact be "absolute nothingness" or "absolute no thingness". The two are by no means equivalent. — javra

And so, I suppose something like Nirvana/Moksha, no? So this is why I also brought in notions earlier of romantic love, and the family-unit that follows for many people from this. The person pursuing love/in love would fight you tooth-and-nail if you were to say that this was just an attachment. The surge of hormonal response to someone who has won at love, would rebel to such a degree, that your nothingness would be thrown aside for the sweet embrace of eros-turned-philia that a stable long-term relationship might take. You speak of another world, yet no one wants to really go there. Hence we get watered down things- those for the working man. Self-help guides, basically. The man who joins the monks for a bit and returns.

While I'm here, also in reference to what I previously quoted, namely, the duality between being and non-being:

My strong hunch is that there is equivocations galore in how the term "being" is applied by different philosophers of different cultures and at different times in history. From a Western philosophy vantage, being is not equivalent to existing - as you yourself are aware of. Some examples: The Good, The One, or else Eastern notions of Brahman and Nirvana (this without remainder). None of these exist but all are within their own frameworks taken to in fact be, this in manners that can be said to transcend existence and, thereby, existents - and, therefore, to hold being.

In which sense (from what framework) can there be a non-duality between being and non-being?

In Eastern frameworks, for example, the illusion/magic trick of Maya - wherein things occur and thereby are - is construed as separate from either the Brahman or Nirvana (without remainder) which as ultimate reality is. The first is possible to create and destroy, for example; the second is not. And, tmbk, only in complete absence of the first can one obtain the absolute pure nature of the second - as atman in Hinduism and as anatman in Buddhism. If this is so, then how can Brahman or Nirvana (without remainder) be considered to not be - this as would be implied by neither being nor not-being?

The man who joins the monks for a bit and returns. — schopenhauer1

Yea, as ascetic as I might have unwillingly become at certain points in my life, this is antithetical to me and my outlook. Experience is for experiencing, just as life is for living. Philosophy - with all its philosophical problems and analysis - is worthless outside of a means of theoretically appraising how one might best experience and live (this being something that I find applicable to even pessimists/nihilists such as yourself). The latter not being theory but praxis.

Yea, as ascetic as I might have unwillingly become at certain points in my life, this is antithetical to me and my outlook. Experience is for experiencing, just as life is for living. Philosophy - with all its philosophical problems and analysis - is worthless outside of a means of theoretically appraising how one might best experience and live (this being something that I find applicable to even pessimists/nihilists such as yourself). The latter not being theory but praxis. — javra

I mean, the rebuttal would just be that you either have an accurate appraisal or not. It would not be philosophy then, but merely coping. If I'm reading a book on improving work habits, I don't see that as pursuing "what is the truth." Pragmatism may address various functional outcomes, but it doesn't engage with the fundamental understanding of the human condition. It is indeed, as Zapffe would explain, be an example of "distracting or ignoring" as a mechanism to deny the reality.

It would not be philosophy then, but merely coping. — schopenhauer1

Philosophy (the love of wisdom) is about coping. Be it the "highest" form of coping or the "deepest" form of coping, it's coping with suffering all the same.

It is indeed, as Zapffe would explain, be an example of "distracting or ignoring" as a mechanism to deny the reality. — schopenhauer1

You certainly come across as believing yourself to be endowed with the "accurate appraisal" you've made mention of. To be precise: A distraction from, or an ignoring of, what reality? It certainly can't be the ultimate reality of The Good / The One / Brahman / Nirvana - for you take these notions to be a farce.

The reality of nothingness? But then what on earth is stopping one from obtaining this envision "reality" - nothing except one's own self.

The issues become a bit more challenging when addressing an obtainment of the The Good / The One / etc. ... which in certain circles do in fact sometimes get expressed in terms of "absolute love". All the "boo to love" in the world notwithstanding.

The person pursuing love/in love would fight you tooth-and-nail if you were to say that this was just an attachment. The surge of hormonal response to someone who has won at love, would rebel to such a degree, that your nothingness would be thrown aside for the sweet embrace of eros-turned-philia that a stable long-term relationship might take. — schopenhauer1

Consider early Buddhism - Gautama said to be of noble birth, who renounces home and family life in pursuit of liberation. (The meaning of the name of his son, Rāhula, who joined the sangha and was also considered arahant, was 'fetter'.) This is axial-age philosophy - similar in some respects to the contemporaneous Gnostic sects in the Middle East who likewise depict wisdom and liberation as being entirely other to wordly life.

But with the advent of Mahāyāna Buddhism, the meaning of liberation is altogether re-envisioned. One of the Mahāyāna texts is the Vimalakīrti Nirdeśa, the subject of which is a wealthy silk-trader who's insight into śūnyatā is so profound that the other disciples are afraid to debate him! One of the revolutionary insights of Mahāyāna was the non-difference of Nirvāṇa and Saṃsāra, whereas for the earlier tradition these were utterly separate realms. (There is an aphorism associated with early Mahāyāna, 'Saṃsāra is Nirvāṇa grasped, Nirvāṇa is Saṃsāra released', although it is of course true that these are the kinds of teachings that Theravada Buddhists don't accept.)

Accordingly, the Bodhisattva ideal introduces a profoundly different dynamic:

There are two ways in which someone can take rebirth after death: rebirth under the sway of karma and destructive emotions and rebirth through the power of compassion and prayer. Regarding the first, due to ignorance, negative and positive karma are created and their imprints remain on the consciousness. These are reactivated through craving and grasping, propelling us into the next life. We then take rebirth involuntarily in higher or lower realms. This is the way ordinary beings circle incessantly through existence like the turning of a wheel*. Even under such circumstances ordinary beings can engage diligently with a positive aspiration in virtuous practices in their day-to-day lives. They familiarise themselves with virtue that at the time of death can be reactivated providing the means for them to take rebirth in a higher realm of existence. On the other hand, superior Bodhisattvas, who have attained the path of seeing, are not reborn through the force of their karma and destructive emotions, but due to the power of their compassion for sentient beings and based on their prayers to benefit others. They are able to choose their place and time of birth as well as their future parents. — H H The Dalai Lama

* That description loosely approximates Schopenhauer's diagnosis of 'world as will'.

I'm not quoting this to evangalise belief but as an illustration of the way that Mahāyāna Buddhism reconciled the reality of life in the world with the higher truths of their religion. But for me, personally, it provides a satisfactory philosophical framework within which to accept the vicissitudes of existence.

Philosophy (the love of wisdom) is about coping. Be it the "highest" form of coping or the "deepest" form of coping, it's coping with suffering all the same. — javra

I can actually get on board with this, IF it was more the existential kind. I have proposed Communities of Catharsis to cope with the existential dilemma. Sans any actual soteriology, all we can do is bear witness to the Suffering.

You certainly come across as believing yourself to be endowed with the "accurate appraisal" you've made mention of. To be precise: A distraction from, or an ignoring of, what reality? It certainly can't be the ultimate reality of The Good / The One / Brahman / Nirvana - for you take these notions to be a farce. — javra

Simply the Suffering of life, our separation from the kind of being that other animals have, and the fact that we can prevent suffering for future people. There isn't much more realization I am talking about here. We can go a little further, like the (metaphorical) understanding of Will (the need for need/our lack/dissatisfaction) traced by Schopenhauer, but it would just be the details at that point.

The reality of nothingness? But then what on earth is stopping one from obtaining this envision "reality" - nothing except one's own self. — javra

This part is tricky. I am not sure how to view "absolute nothingness". I surely know only the kind that is in regards to "what is not". For example, a person not existing, doesn't suffering. By way of this knowledge, I know some conclusions to make from this.

The issues become a bit more challenging when addressing an obtainment of the The Good / The One / etc. ... which in certain circles do in fact sometimes get expressed in terms of "absolute love". All the "boo to love" in the world notwithstanding. — javra

Ha, yes, I don't really see that as anything but metaphorically interesting poetry at this point. Neoplatonism, and even Schopenhauer's construction of Will, mediated by the subject/object illusion into individuation, is interesting, but ultimately, I am not sure what to make of that metaphysics. This I suppose is what @Wayfarer means by my "nihilism". I'm not sure if I take that "higher reality" as seriously, though I am partial to understanding it further as a study.

I'm not quoting this to evangalise belief but as an illustration of the way that Mahāyāna Buddhism reconciled the reality of life in the world with the higher truths of their religion. But for me, personally, it provides a satisfactory philosophical framework within which to accept the vicissitudes of existence. — Wayfarer

I'm sure this debate has been played out between Mahayana and Theravada schools, but wouldn't one just say that this is trying to reconcile one's desires with doctrine? I have no dog in this fight really, being I don't believe in the soteriology framework of either schools.

Simply the Suffering of life, our separation from the kind of being that other animals have, and the fact that we can prevent suffering for future people. There isn't much more realization I am talking about here. — schopenhauer1

I find that suffering, much like understanding, comes in nonquantitative magnitudes - rather than in a binary of on/off. An animal will understand friend from foe, and an animal will suffer when its understanding is found to be erroneous. Humans have the capacity to understand far more than any other lifeform, yes, and this opportunity comes attached to the cost of potentially far greater magnitudes of suffering. One can affix to this the proposition of, “the more I know, the less I understand,” and like expressions.

Otherwise, I’m in general agreement with this quoted statement.

Where we so far greatly differ is in the resolution to the suffering addressed: everything from the stance that ignorance is thereby bliss to the stance that, since existential being is entwined with the capacity to suffer, the resolution is then the obtainment of (or the eternally perpetuating state of) non-being - this so as the fix the problem.

But I think I get it: short of an otherwise termed “mystical” account of reality that is not only rationally justified but rationally justified so as to disallow for any other justifiable alternative, those such as yourself will refuse to entertain the possibility of The Good / The One / Brahman / Nirvana as soteriological end in any serious way.

As for me, I’m doing my best to present what I hope to eventually be, fingers crossed, a roughly equivalent thesis to the one just described. But guess what: it ain’t easy – the time constraints and such of living one’s life here placed aside. And if it’s a fool’s errand, then I acknowledge being such a fool.

Nevertheless, I look at the alternative of “non-being as soteriological end else soteriological reality” - such that one deems all suffering to not be in this metaphysically possible state of non-being. And I become existentially appalled at the consequent results: if we all obtain this end of non-being upon our corporeal death, why not lie, cheat, and steal (or worse) as much as we can while living so as to maximize our profits till our inevitable non-being results? Due to other’s suffering? Just like us, the quicker they die, the quicker they too obtain their absolute salvation from any and all suffering. Besides, the more unempathetic we ourselves become, the less we ourselves suffer on account of what occurs to others. Yay. That these human behaviors are directly causing the Holocene extinction worldwide as we speak? All life benefits by its cessation to live via the resultant obtainment of non-being - this being its sole means of being free from suffering - and so the global destruction of life and its myriad species is in fact doing all life a big favor. Nuclear weapons detonated? Even better. And if we manage to obliterate all life in the cosmos - here assuming all life in the cosmos is located on our planet Earth - then we will obtain the very cessation of life ever being birthed to begin with. Never mind then evolving over time into forms of life with greater capacity for understanding and suffering than that currently held.

All this is a bit villainous. “Evil incarnate” some might express. With a good pinch of materialism, in the colloquial sense, thrown in for flavor.

I have no dog in this fight — schopenhauer1

I was responding to the point of yours that I quoted, about how to reconcile the apparent unworldliness of the desire for transcendence, with the actuality of life as living individuals with attachments to significant others.

if we all obtain this end of non-being upon our corporeal death, why not lie, cheat, and steal (or worse) as much as we can while living so as to maximize our profits till our inevitable non-being results? — javra

This is the classic theist trope about why atheists wouldn't just wantonly kill and murder and do bad things because of not believing in a god. It assumes that moral behavior is contingent on divine oversight, ignoring the fact that many atheists and secular philosophies advocate for ethical conduct based on various ethical frameworks or sensibilities such as rights, empathy, or even rational self-interest, rather than fear of punishment or promise of reward.

All life benefits by its cessation to live via the resultant obtainment of non-being - this being its sole means of being free from suffering - and so the global destruction of life and its myriad species is in fact doing all life a big favor. Nuclear weapons detonated? Even better. And if we manage to obliterate all life in the cosmos - here assuming all life in the cosmos is located on our planet Earth - then we will obtain the very cessation of life ever being birthed to begin with. Never mind then evolving over time into forms of life with greater capacity for understanding and suffering than that currently held.

All this is a bit villainous. “Evil incarnate” some might express. With a good pinch of materialism, in the colloquial sense, thrown in for flavor. — javra

Strawmanning is not a great way to argue. Violating various ethical principles to uphold another ethical principle negates it. But anyways, not believing in an idea of "non-being" doesn't lead to the desire to see nuclear destruction. Sorry, not following that logic.

I was responding to the point of yours that I quoted, about how to reconcile the apparent unworldliness of the desire for transcendence, with the actuality of life as living individuals with attachments to significant others. — Wayfarer

I could ask a series of personal questions to get to a point, but you can take these instead of "you" as more of "why would one", to depersonalize it:

1) Why would you pursue romantic love and familial life in the first place and not just enlightenment?

2) What would happen if the partner (or current/final partner) you have ended up with had broken up with you before you procreated or got married? If your life had two versions, and one path was a version that was not successful at finding love, and the other one that did, is the first one as well-off as the second?

2a) If the first one is not as well-off, what are the implications?

And so again, my quote from above, the CONTINGENT circumstances glaringly more apparent:

Tell someone on here who recently fell in love that existence is suffering. The hormones alone will lead them to (internally) violently resist. They just “won” and you are going to question that? Skip a few years and babies, and more pay from work, and a bit of status in society. You end up with grandkids and half the old timer posters on here giving you their quite middlebrow-everyday man’s workaday morals of something equivalent to Aristotle’s Golden Mean. At the most, they can give you “balance” in some Tao inspired koan. But it’s all to preserve that lifestyle. They cling to it, because if that was lost, a whole despair from a loss and attachment to a lifestyle and stability has gone away. Of course these posters oppose the kind of radical pessimism and antinatalism I speak of.

Hesse's Siddhartha, discussed this in a way.. Existential themes related to exactly these kind of attachments. Detachment after attachments are made seem cruel. Successful X may also be contingent. Yet instead of never pursuing or abandoning the pursuit as vanity, if one is successful, one rarely lets go. No reason to lose love for no reason other than a silly philosophy, right?

1) Why would you pursue romantic love and familial life in the first place and not just enlightenment? — schopenhauer1

Yeah, well, life doesn't come at you pre-divided into neat paths. Usually it's a mix of conscious motivations, circumstances, accident and planning. But to get back to the main point, the consequence of the kind of self-awareness that humans possess, doesn't necessarily entail endless suffering, although it can.

This is the classic theist trope about why atheists wouldn't just wantonly kill and murder and do bad things because of not believing in a god. It assumes that moral behavior is contingent on divine oversight, ignoring the fact that many atheists and secular philosophies advocate for ethical conduct based on various ethical frameworks or sensibilities such as rights, empathy, or even rational self-interest, rather than fear of punishment or promise of reward. — schopenhauer1

I don’t have the time to fully unpack this. But it is sheer emotion/sentimentality devoid of any rational exposition. As though atheists don’t operate by rewards and punishments. Or as the The Good is some godly oversight. But I’ll cut this short.

Strawmanning is not a great way to argue. — schopenhauer1

I agree, so why are you doing it?

Sorry, not following that logic. — schopenhauer1

As is readily apparent, this in rebuttals such as the following:

But anyways, not believing in an idea of "non-being" doesn't lead to the desire to see nuclear destruction. — schopenhauer1

Ok, then.

Frankly, I wouldn’t mind your believing that a possible state of non-being is better than being and should thereby be prescribed - but for your trying to convince all others of this suicidally unethical absurdity. Greatly comforting to your own state of being though their agreement would be.

but for your trying to convince all others of this suicidally unethical absurdity — javra

WTF are you talking about? You are strolling into troll territory. You accuse my argument of emotional sentimentality. This is just a provoking sentimental provocation right there.

Why is it unethical absurdity to your sensibilities? What kind of philosophy are you advocating then that this is making you clutch your pearls that I don’t believe in Nirvana. I’ve never seen this reaction outside Abrahamic beliefs. Even Wayfarer, a long time eastern practitioner doesn’t peddle in this kind of pearl clutching or trolling, even if he believes that it is nihilism.

WTF are you talking about? You are strolling into troll territory. You accuse my argument of emotional sentimentality. This is just a provoking sentimental provocation right there.

Why is it unethical absurdity to your sensibilities? — schopenhauer1

You might not “follow the logic” but ….

Suicide rates increased 37% between 2000-2018 in the US and is one of the leading causes of death.

If life is bad and non-being is good, this as antinatalism advocates and disseminates, then there is no surprise that many out there will come to infer that the only logical conclusion to the unpleasantries of life is to commit suicide. Even though an antinatalist will not advocate for suicide per se, the message they send via their tenuous reasoning directly works toward this effect, most especially for those who believe death to equate to non-being.

There’s more to it than this, but you already expressed that you don’t follow the logic to it, so why bother to further address it.

All the same, last I checked, disseminating views that end up encouraging others out there to ponder, if not commit, self-murder is unethical. Hence the absurdity of positing such views to be in life’s best interest and hence ethical. I figure one’s “existential self-awareness” ought to make this amply clear, but apparently not.

You might not “follow the logic” but ….

Suicide rates increased 37% between 2000-2018 in the US and is one of the leading causes of death.

If life is bad and non-being is good, this as antinatalism advocates and disseminates, then there is no surprise that many out there will come to infer that the only logical conclusion to the unpleasantries of life is to commit suicide. Even though an antinatalist will not advocate for suicide per se, the message they send via their tenuous reasoning directly works toward this effect, most especially for those who believe death to equate to non-being. — javra

This to me is a load of bullshit. So yeah I don't follow the reasoning. If you asked the suicidal person if they killed themselves because they heard the views of antinatalism, most will have not. In fact, if anything it speaks to other things that pessimists and antinatalists discuss, but not caused by antinatalism, a crucial difference.

There’s more to it than this, but you already expressed that you don’t follow the logic to it, so why bother to further address it. — javra

Because you have none. This is all veiled ad hominem.

All the same, last I checked, disseminating views that end up encouraging others out there to ponder, if not commit, self-murder is unethical. Hence the absurdity of positing such views to be in life’s best interest and hence ethical. I figure one’s “existential self-awareness” ought to make this amply clear, but apparently not. — javra

Yeah, this is a major fallacy. If someone is a free speech advocate, yet some of it is hate speech that encourages X bad action, the free speech advocate isn't directly causing or encouraging the negative consequences of "free speech", or its misuse rather. A person who is "pro gun rights" isn't for school shootings. A person who is pro-choice isn't for killing babies. These are all examples of straw mans.

So I propose you move away from this ridiculous line of reasoning and if you want to discuss the existential issues, be my guest. If you want to advocate for a Buddhist approach, or be critical of pessimism without making a strawman caricature of it by trying to conflate bad motives, edge cases, and extremes, or general cultural trends (that may be part of the same substrate but not caused by it), go ahead.

I think @javra is making a solid point. Nietszche foresaw the upsurge of nihilism due to the death of God - which was not, according to David Bentley Hart, a paean to the triumph of atheism, as a Dawkins would have it, but a lament over the loss of the foundational values tied to belief in God.

I also agree that antinatalism is an obviously nihilistic attitude. It’s basically ‘it would have been much better never to have been born.’ The fact is, we have! We have discussed many times the sense in which soteriological paths seek to transcend the inevitable suffering of existence, but antinatalism and nihilist philosophers seem have no belief in or interest in it. It seems to me they turn their back on the prospect of any genuine remediation.

I’ve been listening the last two years to John Vervaeke’s Awakening from the Meaning Crisis. Vervaeke is professor of Cognitive Science at University of Toronto. It’s a series of 50 lectures on the basis of the sense of meaninglessness that afflicts many humans in today’s world, tracing it right back through the history of culture and civilisation, whilst still trying to stay within the bounds of natural science. I recommend a listen.

I think javra is making a solid point. Nietszche foresaw the upsurge of nihilism due to the death of God - which was not, according to David Bentley Hart, a paean to the triumph of atheism, as a Dawkins would have it, but a lament over the loss of the foundational values tied to belief in God. — Wayfarer

He isn't really. You are improving upon it though, to make it a better one. One actually that I also agree with to an extent.

I also agree that antinatalism is an obviously nihilistic attitude. It’s basically ‘it would have been much better never to have been born.’ — Wayfarer

Not basically, it is that.

The fact is, we have! We have discussed many times the sense in which soteriological paths seek to transcend the inevitable suffering of existence, but antinatalism and nihilist philosophers seem have no belief in or interest in it. It seems to me they turn their back on the prospect of any genuine remediation. — Wayfarer

Obviously the antinatalist part is advocating for prevention of the suffering of existence in the first place, without need to justify it for some abstract outcome that might be hoped for.

Let me ask you this- do you see ways of practically handling the situation that is not based on ideas of a spiritual nature (karma, dharma, etc.)? If we've had conversations before, do you have an inkling of what I might say?

do you see ways of practically handling the situation that is not based on ideas of a spiritual nature (karma, dharma, etc.)? — schopenhauer1

wouldn't call Buddhism spiritual. We can't help view it in those terms, or map it against them, because of our own cultural background and the pervasive use of that word. I do it myself! My experience with Buddhist meditation brought up a lot of 'samskaras' (mental tendencies) from my own Christian cultural background, but 'spiritual' carries connotations which aren't necessarily accurate to Buddhism.

The question at issue is 'existential anxiety' and the predicament implicit in the human condition, which divergent religions and philosophies claim to or attempt to ameliorate. So does 'handling the situation' mean - ameliorating that deep sense of anxiety?

The question at issue is 'existential anxiety' and the predicament implicit in the human condition, which divergent religions and philosophies claim to or attempt to ameliorate. So does 'handling the situation' mean - ameliorating that deep sense of anxiety? — Wayfarer

Communities of catharsis, mutual understanding of our situation without flinching. If there is no escape to X metaphysical better state, then we can only help and advocate for each other in various communal ways, or, as my other thread suggested, drop out completely- withdraw and become content alone, perhaps using various known techniques to help withdraw.

However, to simply propose a higher metaphysical entity/order/reality/non-reality/no-thing-ness in order to provide the hope, is not unflinching. It's yet another bad faith. The problem with these ancient religions is that they are employed to give a de facto answer, and are "baked into" the culture so that you are always forced in affirming or denying things which are opposed to the traditions, as if they are just something that we should take seriously in the first place. Rather, we should understand the situation as if on a political committee.. Committees for existential condition. The problem is everything devolves into survival and beyond that, "What's the fckn point?". The situation as it is now, would have it such that technological consumption, and making a living is the point. It's the de facto thing we fall into as it is our mechanism of survival since the industrial revolution.. So then,

I’ve been listening the last two years to John Vervaeke’s Awakening from the Meaning Crisis. Vervaeke is professor of Cognitive Science at University of Toronto. It’s a series of 50 lectures on the basis of the sense of meaninglessness that afflicts many humans in today’s world, tracing it right back through the history of culture and civilisation, whilst still trying to stay within the bounds of natural science. I recommend a listen. — Wayfarer

Yes, I have watched most of that series. I noticed he discusses Hegel but does not have one on Schopenhauer. I think that's something revealing. False hope? Bad faith? Reinterpreting a Platonic existence or some such, what does this do, but another philosopher's coping device?

What would ameliorating anxiety be such that we aren't looking to ancient truths, but instead, hard realities of what we know (not what we is "revealed" if we just follow this ancient/sacred path).

Certainly people (modern Westerners mainly) will say relationships, experiences (usually this involves, nature, travel, "adventures"), learning, and love are the things we must focus on- as if these are ends in themselves (see my thread here: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/15378/a-review-and-critical-response-to-the-shortcomings-of-popular-secularist-philosophies/p1.

Rather, all these "goods" are not necessarily only "factual" or objective but rather normative. There is an agenda, at the cost of much suffering. But we must look at this and see what it is we are trying to do here and why we are insisting on doing it. That's why I suggested we should treat existence as a political committee would, putting a moratorium on it until we understand why we trudge forth, but do this analysis unflinchingly, without the poetic cliches.

Let me ask you this- do you see ways of practically handling the situation that is not based on ideas of a spiritual nature (karma, dharma, etc.)? — schopenhauer1

The problem of "existential anxiety" only ever exists precisely in reference to religions and spiritualities, old and more recent.
It's inconceivable otherwise.

One cannot even suffer unless one has some beliefs about "how life and the world should be", and those beliefs are informed by religions and spiritualities, however vaguely and however (im)precisely delivered to an individual person via acculturation.

So for a modern mainstream psychologist, there is no such thing as "existential anxiety", only "chemical imbalances in the brain" and other "disorders" and "mental illnesses". For such psychologists, the solution is primarily medication, and then talk therapy, aimed toward basically seeing oneself as a biomechanical robot.

In order to solve the problem of suffering and existential anxiety, one first needs to figure out where one got the very concepts of "suffering" and "existential anxiety" to begin with and why one is taking them for granted.

That's why I suggested we should treat existence as a political committee would,

putting a moratorium on it until we understand why we trudge forth,

but do this analysis unflinchingly, without the poetic cliches. — schopenhauer1

It's just that people usually die before they figure this out. The moratorium you speak of is indefinite.

The fact that we exist is something over which we have no control, it precedes us. As such, we have no say over its meaning. To try to figure out why we exist or why life is worth living and to make this a matter of decision is like trying to choose one's parents. That is, it's irrational, it cannot be done.