, I appreciate you, but I've read almost all of his works. And more than that, I've come from the tradition from which Dostoevsky came.

Ok. But notice that religions that accept samsara generally posit some kind of transcendence of the transitoriness, suffering, death present in it. They do not 'affirm life' by accepting death, suffering etc but they generally try to find a 'way out'. That's why detachment is generally a common attitude you find in them (as well as compassion for other beings trapped in the prison of samsara). — boundless

I've used Samsara as analogy, not literally.
1. Life, in general, is eternal. Not life of one particular individual, but in general.
2. Life is suffering. One's life, by pure luck, can be pretty good in absent of pain in suffering. But that's not the case overall.
3. Life cannot be escaped.

And the problem is: how one, given three premises above, affirms life as it is?
I hope I clarified the question.

Thanks.

, appreciate you for your response.

I believe that a more rational way to approach life would be something like the Epicurean model. That is cherishing and delighting in life in moderation, i.e. we should remind ourselves that life is finite and try to avoid to attach to it too much importance. — boundless

For me, life (in general) isn't finite. In Buddhist word's, Samsara will make another turn.
And there's situations where you can't avoid/moderate pain & suffering (that's what I'm dealing with) , so Epicurus is not for me.

What about Nietzsche... I don't want to discuss him at this thread, because that's not the point of it.
And my interpretation of him radically differs from mainstream.

So, it would seem that without any hope of transcendence and/or redemption it is impossible to avoid to suffer and attain any kind of solid happiness. — boundless

I know that suffering is unavoidable. As I said: "life is eternal suffering".
My goal is to affirm it, accept it. To love this life despite all the suffering it entails.

No you didn't... you literally said "I don't like N's solution..." so you interpreted his philosophy in a way that wasnt helpful to you at all. — DifferentiatingEgg

I said that I'm not satisfied, I didn't say that I don't like his solution. And what makes you think that his solution wasn't helpful? I think that the only poor reader here is you.

You didn't even know N's solution... you made one up... N never prescribes a solution. N's solution for himself was music. — DifferentiatingEgg

Where did I say that he prescribes a solution?
As I said, I don't ask you to solve my problem, what I did was ask you how you would solve/solved this problem for yourself.
But you just want to yell nonsense. And Nietzsche's solution for himself wasn't music.

yup, that's what fascinates me... People just want to fight with each other on who better understands and reads N.

Thank you all.

and dude's post is about a solution to his wrong idea on N's philosophy. — DifferentiatingEgg

My post is about a solution to my problem. I don't care about correct understanding of Nietzsche's philosophy (it's silly), I interpreted him in the way that can be helpful to work on issue I presented here.
All I did was:
1. Posed the problem.
2. Gave the options that I considered. (I don't say that I interpreted Nietzsche right, that's not my goal)
3. Asked for yours.

I don't expect to have a "ready-made solution" served to me. I just wanted to look at other's people perspective.
Maybe, you should read more carefully. Maybe, I should write less ambiguously.

Peace.

You're right, but that's why I wrote "some of his views".

I think Artur was a great philosopher and had many good points. But, at least, he was wrong about "redemption". I believe one cannot detach from the 'blind striving' of Will, there's only the Will to Life (in Schopenhauer's terms) and nothing else.
That's why I appeal to Nietzsche, he accepts that life is suffering & one cannot escape it (even more, he radicalized this idea into "eternal recurrence"). And tries to find the solution.

Thank you.

Yup, for me Schopenhauer is right (to some degree) about metaphysics and life itself, but not in his way of dealing with it.

I really gonna take a closer look at Kierkegaard. Thank you.

In Birth of Tragedy N details more or less early on that the approbation of life comes through creators creating a faith and hanging that faith over a people such that the faith serves their way of life... — DifferentiatingEgg

Absolutely, for early Nietzsche. Affirmation of life through creation of illusions (Der Wahn). But he rejected this idea because it veils life, not affirms it.

We can see that suffering doesn't necessarily improve us. And Nietzsche details this further in Genealogy... as slave morality often arises out of those who suffer, and fail to disgest the internalization of that suffering. Where as the noble moralities always spring from the triumphant affirmation of ones own demands... (GoM 10). — DifferentiatingEgg

Indeed. Impact of suffering depends on one's own "health". More than that, "healthy" men move towards suffering because of The Will to Power (will to overcome). But, is it the only way to affirm life? That's the question. Or Nietzsche gave us all possible options?

Thank you for your answer.

, I appreciate you for your answer.

I did try. His "leap of faith" is not for me either. I just can't.
Though I didn't read him entirely. Maybe I should.

Dostoevsky is one of my favorites writers, my nickname is borrowed from his "Demons". :)

In short, religions disagree about what happens when I die, how to be saved, etc. Religions have had thousands of years to find the truth and have failed. — Art48

Oh, I didn't know that there was the truth. How did you verify that religion (what is a religion?) failed to find the truth?

For Nietzsche, I would take "The Birth of Tragedy" first. Nietzsche himself said that one should start with his earlier works, and then go with later ones. Though Friedrich rejected "The Birth of Tragedy", it's still a great book. And important one.

And it's pretty existentialist. The question of affirmation of life, it's value.