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.

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?

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.

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.

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?

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.

Philosophy of being versus philosophy of objects/stuff seems to be about as good a distillation as you are going to get. Other posters have intimated similar themes. Both can be pursued. It's when one fetishizes one for the other, that one may be not comprehensive.

I think there is something akin to "anxiety of usefulness". For example, I suppose someone studying "Philosophy of Science" and "Logic", thinks they are contributing something more useful than people who dare to philosophize on "being" or "the human condition" or the idea of "freedom". So, I guess it's about what people are insecure/anxious about when it comes to picking up philosophical endeavors.

As others have stated as well, academic pursuits, adds its own set of anxieties.. To conform to a certain preferred set of topics, etc.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

@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.

Hence the association of celibacy with renunciate philosophies. — Wayfarer

:up: To focus on the most important points above:

Our Disconnection from Nature:
Alienation from the natural world, contrasting with other animals' instinctual harmony within their environments. Inspired by the Wayfarer quote: "Other animals are water in water. We are on the outside, trying to look in." The human condition as estranged from the seamless unity of natural existence due to our self-awareness and artificial constructs.

Suffering as a Metaphysical Category:
Suffering (capital "S") transcends individual pain, symbolizing the universal burden of existence itself.
Includes physical/emotional harm, existential dread (existence as imposed without consent), and pervasive dissatisfaction (dukkha) found in Eastern thought. — schopenhauer1

Antinatalism:
A moral stance against bringing new life into existence, grounded in the recognition that existence is imposed without consent. Life entails Suffering as an inescapable fact, and the act of procreation forces another being to endure it. — schopenhauer1

Our capacity for self-awareness of existence, has enormous capacity to open up the Suffering entailed in existence. We are not like the other animals in how we Suffer. It is not just immediate; it is bound in our past, present, and future. It possesses subtle nuances of physical, emotional, and existential negative valence. Once one has looked at the situation long enough- it would be madness/callous/misguided to put more people into the situation. Thus Zapffe's emphasis on some psychological defense mechanisms we have developed:

Zapffe: Humanity copes with existential horror through denial, distraction, anchoring or sublimation, but these are inadequate foundations for justifying new life. — schopenhauer1

So this is at best a preliminary set-up for a change to kosher, not a direct attack on kosher. It is explicitly about tradition and handwashing.

Entering a state of ritual impurity is not the same thing as breaking the law. We will all be in states of ritual impurity at one point or another. Sometimes it's beyond our control/just nature taking its course.
— BitconnectCarlos

Sure, but it's not beyond his control here, is it? And the implication of the text is that no ritual impurity has affected Jesus.

(That is, I don't think you can say that it is not against the Law to touch a dead body, even if the Law does not mandate that no one is ever permitted to touch a dead body, or that there is no recourse for someone who does. It's perfectly easy to argue that the way Jesus touches the dead body is contrary to the Law. At stake here are spirit/letter distinctions.) — Leontiskos

This is about as close to a "historical" debate on Jesus as you're going to get from the writings of the New Testament, as they "loosely" reflect the debates that may have taken place among the various sects of Second Temple Judaism. There's a lot happening, so it's hard to summarize everything, but one can view the cross-section of these debates as something like this:

The Pharisees upheld an oral tradition of ancestral law. Traditionally, this oral law was seen as supplemental or secondary to the written Torah, serving as judgments made by elders, scribes, and prophets to clarify and apply the written laws. However, a compelling theory proposed by Michael Satlow (in How the Bible Became Holy) suggests that the Pharisaic tradition was originally exclusively oral and did not include a written Law.

According to this theory, it was the Sadducees, not the Pharisees, who prioritized the written law. During the Hellenistic period, when Pharisaic-backed priests and Sadducean (Zadokite) priests competed for influence, the Sadducees insisted on a written version of the Law to serve as a definitive reference. This practice of preserving Torah scrolls in the Temple later influenced synagogues, which adopted the tradition of keeping copies of the Torah. While the Pharisees were familiar with the written text, their primary emphasis remained on the oral tradition, which they considered paramount.

It wasn't until after the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 CE that the written Torah and oral traditions were formally integrated into Rabbinic Judaism. This development unified the Pharisaic and Sadducean approaches, making both the written Torah and oral traditions authoritative and essential. This view challenges the traditional belief that Rabbinic Judaism is a direct continuation of Pharisaic Judaism with little input from Sadducean practices.

The Pharisees themselves were divided into two schools of thought:

Hillelites: Advocated for a more lenient and inclusive interpretation of the Law.
Shammaites: Held to a stricter and more rigid interpretation.
Two key points emerge:

Jesus’ criticism of Pharisaic practices could reflect a stance against their oral traditions (e.g., emphasizing purity laws as “extra-written” and invalid).
Alternatively, Jesus might align more with Hillelite Pharisaic views, opposing stricter Shammaite interpretations, particularly regarding purity laws. However, this interpretation may not be fully captured in later writings such as the Gospel of Mark.

If we acknowledge that Antiochus IV engaged in a repressive Hellenization program and that the Jews violently resisted it is it crazy to think that there were martyrs? Or did it only start in Roman times? Do you believe there were martyrs then or is that also not historical? — BitconnectCarlos

It isn’t crazy, but it isn’t unreasonable to believe (and with good reason) that ancient writers embellished history to make a point or a point of view starker, etc., in their stories. Ancient authors had a propensity to make history fit a particular perspective, to embellish, redact, or write idealized versions of events, and so on. They weren’t bound by any reporter’s oath or similar obligation. Even Josephus likely had a point of view, probably hid things, and made events appear a certain way for various personal or stylistic reasons tailored to his audience.

My concern is more whether they kept the basic elements. Whatever exact form it took, I do believe Jews were willing to die to preserve their ancestral customs at this point in the mid 2nd century BC. — BitconnectCarlos

Sure, that's what I was saying. I see nothing ahistorical about this statement. There were ancestral customs, people wanted to defend it. Yep.

I'd figure by this point the Torah was quite stabilized. It had already been translated into Greek a century earlier. — BitconnectCarlos

The legend holds that the Septuagint was commissioned around 260 BCE by Ptolemy II Philadelphus for inclusion in the Library of Alexandria. The stabilization of the text doesn’t contradict my earlier point that it was a small cadre of elites or priests who curated this stricter interpretation and compendium of Hebrew history and mythology. While some of these writings likely date back to Ezra’s time—and perhaps even to the reigns of Kings Josiah or Hezekiah—they hadn’t been widely popularized or fully implemented until the Maccabees' victory.

It’s during the Hasmonean period that we see much stronger evidence of the Torah’s laws being regarded as authoritative and holy for the broader population, not just for a small priestly elite. Yonatan Adler, among other recent historians, delves into this subject, and I can provide sources if you'd like.

For a concise overview, this video: (https://www.youtube.com/live/vD5VmGkqfAg?si=rDm6acqkXqMIo_ss) is worth watching. However, I want to stress something Adler doesn't emphasize enough: while he suggests that the widespread influence of the Biblical writings didn’t emerge until the Hellenistic period, he doesn’t claim that the writings themselves didn’t exist earlier. His argument is more about their limited reach and impact on the general Judean population until the Hasmonean/Maccabean dynasty expanded their influence.

Maybe. Most of the First Temple era kings and Israelites come out looking pretty bad except Josiah and Hezekiah. It's hard to get solid info about the life of the average Israelite from this era. But yes, Judaism as we know it really forms in the 2nd temple period. — BitconnectCarlos

The writings intentionally chosen by the scribes that compiled the Hebrew Scriptures reflect the worldview of the "Yahweh Only!" group, which was quite small (even then probably more henotheistic until Second Isaiah, which more prominently put forth a monotheistic vision). This group, during the Babylonian Exile, compiled and redacted various writings to fit their view of idealized history. It's like watching Fox News and saying, THIS is the only objective news. Clearly, they have a spin!

I put in the input but yes. It turned it into a list based on that. Saved me time but I can recreate it if you want using my own idioms.

You should be looped in the above:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/947684

Biological evolution is not inclusive for all. Individuals being weeded out of the gene pool by natural selection is one of the important trends of evolution.

Which is more consistent with evolutionary trends, promoting the benefit of all, or eugenics? — wonderer1

Most people seem pretty content with this though. Those who are happy for a night of physical pleasure can get someone/become impregnated. Those, who found their "companion" and want to procreate more life, live on. Most "everyday folk" think this is good. The ones that don't procreate, don't have this pleasure/happiness, according to the happy-parental folk.

I think what needs to be re-evaluated is this mentality itself. Clearly, the most moral thing is to prevent future people who suffer, but this is not following the dictates of evolution. And about these dictates of evolution, that is a complete fallacy (appeal to nature/naturalistic fallacy) to think that a sort of "law of nature" (evolution) is something we should act upon.

People seem to have a range of reactions to death. Most of us have an inbuilt (most would say evolved) desire to keep living. But the experince of being, even in a privileged country, with every benefit and good fortune (health/wealth/stability) can be a bit of a drag, I find. I have rarely been a 'suck the marrow out of life' style of person and am somewhat suspicious of those who are. Overcompensating? And seeing the misery and suffering of others, takes the sheen out of most things. But I do find the notion that life has no real purpose intermittently exciting as it affords us creative opportunities to make our own. — Tom Storm

I've thought about this. Obviously something I suffer from, as do many. But I think from a Buddhist perspective, it is an aspect of Kleśa, 'defiled cognition'. It is a form of delusion, and possibly also craving, namely, craving for things to be other than what they are. Of course, realising such a state of inner poise such that one is not subject to boredom seems remote, but I thought I'd mention it. (I suppose in my own case, that being the one I'm most intimately familiar with, it manifests as restleness, general low-level cravings to eat or watch something, and a bodily feeing of slight unease.) — Wayfarer

So self-awareness of existence, is beyond simply "self-awareness". Other animals display forms of "self-knowing" including apes, elephants, dolphins/whales, crows, parrots, etc. Clearly, a being equipped with language/conceptual framing of reality (pretty much just us), can form a "self-awareness of existence". So what is entailed with self-awareness of existence? Here is a somewhat more comprehensive list, and isn't only about "death" and our eventual demise but LIFE, and what that means to exist as we do:

Existentialism themes:
Individual freedom, responsibility, and the search for meaning in a universe that offers no inherent purpose. Existence precedes essence (Sartre), the absurd (Camus), and authenticity (Heidegger).

Philosophical Pessimism: Emphasizes life's inherent suffering and futility.
Schopenhauer (life as "will to life" leads to endless striving and pain) and Zapffe (consciousness as a tragic evolutionary anomaly). Suffering (capital "S") as a universal category encompassing all negatives of existence: physical pain, emotional turmoil, existential dread, angst, and the dissatisfaction central to Buddhist dukkha.

Our Disconnection from Nature:
Alienation from the natural world, contrasting with other animals' instinctual harmony within their environments. Inspired by the Wayfarer quote: "Other animals are water in water. We are on the outside, trying to look in." The human condition as estranged from the seamless unity of natural existence due to our self-awareness and artificial constructs.

Suffering as a Metaphysical Category:
Suffering (capital "S") transcends individual pain, symbolizing the universal burden of existence itself.
Includes physical/emotional harm, existential dread (existence as imposed without consent), and pervasive dissatisfaction (dukkha) found in Eastern thought.

Existential Angst and Alienation:
Angst as the emotional manifestation of recognizing one's freedom and the weight of responsibility.
Alienation not just from nature but also from each other, ourselves, and any presumed divine order.

The Contrast of Being and Becoming:
Life as endless becoming (change, flux) versus the unattainable longing for static being (peace, fulfillment). Pessimism emphasizes this tension as a source of Suffering.

Human Exceptionalism and Its Costs:
Our cognitive detachment grants us creativity but also burdens us with existential uncertainty.
The price of consciousness is perpetual alienation and the magnification of Suffering.

Eastern Parallels:
Buddhist and Hindu traditions describe dukkha and maya, aligning with pessimistic views of life as dissatisfaction and illusion. Suffering viewed not only as personal but systemic and universal.

Hope as a Trap:
Camus' recognition of hope as part of the absurd; Nietzsche's critique of hope as prolonging suffering.
In pessimistic thought, even hope can be a mechanism of delusion, binding us to the cycle of becoming.

Communities of Catharsis:
A potential response to Suffering: forming compassionate communities grounded in mutual recognition of the impositions of existence. Not solutions but spaces for shared understanding and solidarity.

Antinatalism:
A moral stance against bringing new life into existence, grounded in the recognition that existence is imposed without consent. Life entails Suffering as an inescapable fact, and the act of procreation forces another being to endure it.

Schopenhauer:
Procreation perpetuates the "will to life" and endless striving.

Benatar’s Asymmetry Argument: the absence of harm for the non-existent is preferable to the inevitable harm of existence.

Existential Self-Awareness and Antinatalism:
Human consciousness uniquely grasps the futility and inherent Suffering of life.
This awareness implies a responsibility not to impose existence on others, given the universal negatives it entails.

Zapffe: Humanity copes with existential horror through denial, distraction, or sublimation, but these are inadequate foundations for justifying new life.

2 Maccabees recounts an old Jewish man choosing death rather than eating pork during the persecution of Antiochus IV Epiphanes. Hard to imagine he choose death over a tradition which had just now become "in force" in the 160s BC.

And then of course there was the martyrdom of the seven sons and Hannah. — BitconnectCarlos

First off, historians don't take everything in religious texts at face value :roll:. Secondly, not eating pork and following (or even knowing about!) every tittle of the Torah that we know of today, isn't the same thing. It was probably quite true that there was a "traditionalist" camp as represented by the priest Onias III and the Maccabees, but what "tradition" meant, was probably not the full and complete Pentateuch as we know it (though retroactively, this can be imputed back into the history as if it was THIS which was the traditional- the whole kit-and-kaboodle, not just various oral traditions that have been around since at least Ezra or prior to the First Temple period).

Also, if I was to give some credence to the "conservative view", one can say that it wasn't that there was NO group that did not "know about" Torah, but that it was during the Maccabees that it became THE dominant form of Judaism (no longer Henotheistic like First Temple period, no longer heterodox, and with a formal written understanding of the ancestral "Law").

To put it casually: was it the real slim shady or not? Therein lies the only divide between Judaism and Christianity. — Outlander

That's not an accurate statement of the matter. It's extremely complex, because it's hard to say if even the Jewish beliefs of the Torah were completely "in force" until around the time of the Maccabees (160s BCE).. But AT LEAST since the Maccabees, the Torah was "in force" in Judea and presumably for Jews around the Mediterranean/Babylonia. That being said, the idea of the "Messiah" was a largely evolving concept but seemed to have certain characteristics that coalesced around a theme, starting with most "earthly" and ending in the more speculative/heavenly:

Earthly (more definite/less speculative)
1) Restore the Davidic dynasty by being crowned King of Israel. The 1st Temple under the Davidic dynasty was destroyed by Babylonians and when Persia let Jews go back to Judea, they only let them become a province under a governorship, not an independent kingdom. This Messiah was seen as someone who would restore legitimacy and rightful rule over the Land of Israel in a purified manner. My guess, historically-speaking, is that this concept gained major traction as an opposition belief to all "so-called" rulers that ruled since Persians (Maccabees were only priests, and often ruthless to other Jews who opposed them, Herod was clearly a Roman puppet, etc.).

2) Ingathering of Jews across the Diaspora.. Supposedly the Lost Sheep of Israel and all those descended from the 12 tribes would be gathered in (not just Judhites/Levites/Benjaminites but Northern Israelite tribes as well).

3) Temple would be purified by right priestly practices and families from Aaron (Zadokite lineage). Post 70 CE this means the re-building of the Temple in Jerusalem.

4) The other nations will recognize the Jewish Kingdom and king as representing a way of life, a sort of spiritual awakening of sorts, in recognition of Judaic belief system. There will be an eternal era of peace.

More spiritual/speculative

5) A general resurrection of the dead would occur for the righteous.

6) Angels and God will be known and present in some sense

7) There may be a great battle before the last days before the eternal peace where the "wolf will lie down with the lamb". Presumably this battle would be led by the Messiah or at least encouraged by him. In some cases this would include angels to help the righteous Israelites battle the enemy forces.

Paul really seemed to change the Jewish notion of Messiah outlined above to more than a man that has great power, but a part of the godhead and whose death and resurrection abrogated the need to follow commandments in the Torah. That would be a major difference, as the original conception would not only still follow the Torah but presumably put it in place as THE law of the land (of the Jews) in its correct form (for example, presumably the Dead Sea Scroll sect was apocalyptic and thought their way of following the Torah was closest to the correct form to be applied- The Sons of Light versus the Sons of Darkness (both gentiles and Jews who did not follow Torah in their very strict manner).

The will is shown in the doing. — Banno

Schopenhauer took the step of describing his ideas through metaphor and analogy, pushing language to approach what lies beyond direct understanding. Wittgenstein’s 'show, don’t say' principle feels more like a self-imposed limit than a necessity. Schopenhauer’s approach suggests that even if language is imperfect, it still allows one to explore abstract and elusive ideas. By drawing a strict line around what we can talk about, he is really just conveying his sense of what’s worth discussing, not an absolute law of how or when to use language.

Sure. Folk want to talk about stuff about which they can't say anything. Off-topic, but be my guest. — Banno

‘Can’t say anything’ is tricky here, as it’s taken to mean both a normative restriction and a factual one. Schopenhauer, for instance, did say something about it- he called it the Will. However, he emphasized that the Will can only be described negatively (in terms of what it is not) and that any description of it must be analogical or metaphorical. So, in this sense, he did say something about what we don’t really ‘know’ in a direct, observable way. What you’re really getting at is that we can’t prove it beyond speculation. It remains a theory and can never be confirmed empirically; we know it only analogically, not through observation or experimentation. So ‘can’t,’ to me, seems unnecessary here- it’s more a matter of someone’s opinion about what can or should be discussed than an actual barrier to speaking about it.

Kant probably would have agreed with Wittgenstein. — Banno

But you have already turned this on its head. Rather, I would have phrased it, "Wittgenstein should have (rightly) attributed the point to Kant himself" instead of going off on something Kant explained (unnecessarily as if sui generis from Kant).

It isn't, it's irrelevant, and takes up far too much time and effort. — Banno

As you probably know, Schopenhauer fills the X with "The Will" and Hegel "absolute unfolding in dialectic of history", etc. and others with various other things, but is that not more of a 19th century debate that has somewhat faded away unless discussing "history of philosophy" and/or people take up the debates anew (as I often do, but reoriented with newer information at hand and different arguments)?

There is, actually, curtesy of Wittgenstein's beetle in a box argument. We can say nothing about the supposed thing-in-itself, so it cannot have a use in the conversation. It's a useless notion that can be set aside.

Unfortunately folk continue to say quite a bit about it. — Banno

I'm not sure that's a response. Since Kant didn't have much to say about it either other than as a theory of something that is probably there, but can't say much (X); it's about a wash with the beetle argument. A lot of words spent saying what Kant already said, shame.

You can almost claim self-awareness and values are one and the same because selfhood means holding values. Because abundant energetic activity, thoroughly and precisely executed in persistence over significant time, marshals resources to achieve the far from equilibrium state of a living organism,
the biological process presents as a synonym for values. The process of creating life is exquisitely value-centered. Slight deviations from these precisely calibrated values precludes the appearance of living organisms. — ucarr

I thought this was an excellent insight here. Humans have to value something, hold it as a reason for pursuing before the pursuit. Before one ounce of ink is spilled over A -> B, or 1 + 1 = 2, one has to care. As one philosopher noted (and has become almost a mantra), there is an "aboutness" to consciousness, an "intentional stance". This takes the forms in different creatures, but in humans, the value seems primary. Yes there are reflexes and physical responses to stimuli or lack thereof, but most of everything takes on value-drives. But these values I would say have implications that are nearing "necessity" when one takes into account self-awareness OF EXISTENCE itself. So do the values lead to conclusions, or is it always open-ended?

Gonna conjure Apo? It’s his wheelhouse, though if I remember he wasn’t particularly impressed of this information theory- could be mistaken.

Oldie, but goodie.

I only "troll" dogmatic Dunning-Kruger sophists, so by all means practice what you preach: "withdraw", lil butthurt schop. :smirk: — 180 Proof

Again thanks for displaying an example of the topic. Chatgpt has a good take. Describes you to a T:

An internet troll works by provoking reactions. Trolls often post inflammatory, off-topic, or simply annoying comments in online spaces with the goal of upsetting or frustrating others, often to entertain themselves or disrupt the flow of conversation. They typically exploit emotional triggers, baiting people into arguments

But it also understands what you do right below the radar:

People who don’t engage constructively or respectfully in disagreements often fall into a less obvious but still disruptive category of online behavior. These individuals may not outright troll, but they use tactics that impede productive discussion and amplify tension. Here’s how they typically operate:

Dismissive Language: Instead of addressing points thoughtfully, they’ll dismiss opposing views with sarcasm, short rebuffs, or blanket statements. This subtly shows disdain without contributing meaningfully to the conversation.
Passive-Aggressive Remarks: They may use veiled insults or condescending tones rather than direct criticism, creating a toxic atmosphere that can make people feel unheard or disrespected without outright hostility.
Refusal to Acknowledge Valid Points: Rather than considering points that counter their views, they ignore or downplay them, refusing to engage with any part of an argument they can’t immediately dismiss.
Straw Man Arguments and Deflection: Instead of addressing the actual points raised, they distort them, making it easier to refute, or pivot to unrelated issues to avoid the real debate.
Subtle Hostility: They might avoid outright insults but still make others feel belittled or unwelcome with tones that imply the inferiority of other perspectives.
Unlike overt trolls, these people often remain within the boundaries of site rules, making their behavior more challenging to address directly. However, their approach can be equally damaging to discourse by discouraging open, respectful dialogue and fostering an environment where productive exchanges are stifled. Responding calmly, asking clarifying questions, or even disengaging can help minimize the impact of their behavior.

Either way, life on earth is rigged for insuperable misery until death. However, the theist, unlike the antinatalist, can triumph over death through belief grounded in a faith lying beyond knowledge. — ucarr

I think that post is a nice summary of pessimism, as it plays out for the atheistic antinatalist and the theist (some forms at least). Just keep in mind, for Schopenhauer's conception, there are very few "manifestations of will" (individual people to you and me), who are able to "triumph over death through belief grounded in a faith lying beyond knowledge". Far far more people would be mired in the tragedy of suffering (assertion of will) that plays out from birth.

Antinatalism imposes original sin whereas theism gives saints a choice between sin and sanctity. — ucarr

I am not sure what you mean that antinatalism "imposes" original sin. Rather, antinatalism tries to prevent original sin (if we mean by this "birth" / the beginning of assertion of will for yet another hapless individual/manifestation/soul/person/ego/etc.etc.).

As one such antinatalist, I would propose that there can be communal catharsis, things I've proposed many times before and people have in various ways disagreed with because various attachments to work and relationships and modern living have made it seem like I am just not giving a balanced report. Inherent and contingent forms of suffering aren't taken seriously. And then, when something tragic happens, only then, maybe existential issues are entertained.

I'm struggling to see how this isn't another way of saying that, for some individuals -- the elect -- salvation happens through divine grace unwilled.* — ucarr

I guess we do agree on that point, as long as we have the same understanding of "grace unwilled" which I think you do now.

Gnosis, being knowledge of spiritual mysteries, comes to the saint unbidden, doesn't it? — ucarr

Yes

The secular bent of my mind has me conjecturing the following: Schopenhauer has worked out a plan for abstracting oneself from causality and the willful manipulation thereof. This abstraction to pure isolation sets up a subsequent dissolution of the self into... what?

If dissolution of the self into non-existence is salvation, then the unborn are blessed, and the living are cursed. This doesn't sound right to my ear that's always heard life is holy, not that non-existence is
holy. When a transgressor receives the death penalty for commission of a heinous crime, dissolution into non-existence unbidden is salvation? The life of a saintly buddhist dovetails with the life of an unrepentant blackguard? — ucarr

Well, Schopenhauer did believe birth was not good, so yes. He was a proto-antinatalist. However, since he wasn't a materialist but believed that Will needed to be denied, and this is only done through person becoming will-less, then only the ascetic saint, and not just any old death would do.

I myself am more materialist- or at least less believing in this notion of a unified Will... So I am being charitable myself here to Schopenhauer. Rather, I advocate antinatalism (no one should have children), and then for those already born, I don't see much way forward. I only have "practical" recommendations like "do not engage with others as it leads to more suffering". It just made me think of the other stuff one can do to minimize attachments and ultimately, unnecessary entanglements that "seem" good but actually may lead to simply more headache. That is to say, ascetics without the metaphysics perhaps.

First, I'd like to thank you for being Exhibit A for answering the OP question:
Withdrawal is the answer to most axiological problems concerning humans

I like to see the point demonstrated in real time.

Second, I don't engage/indulge/feed belligerent/hostile posters/trolls. Go troll someone else.

It seems to me that, given the above, Christianity's Gospel cannot be served up to the masses (as we are taught); salvation cannot be be reeled in like a fish on a hook; there is no learning how to fish for salvation, as it comes unbidden to the elect, in accordance with a mysterious divinity. If this is true, then Jesus came to earth to greet those already divinely chosen for the afterlife in heaven. — ucarr

I have several things I have contention with in your interpretation
1) Schopenhauer was absolutely an atheist, even if his metaphysics was a speculative Will. So when he discusses Christianity, everything is metaphor. If you look at what he said about Jesus more closely, you'll see he did not believe nor care about the actual Christian belief of a dead/resurrecting god, but rather only the metaphor of a being who REPRESENTS a "denial of the Will" in opposition to METAPHORICAL ADAM, who is "assertion of will". See the quote here:

Yet the origin of this sin is to be referred to the will of the sinner. This sinner was Adam, but we all existed in him; Adam became miserable, and in him we have all become miserable. Certainly the doctrine of original sin (assertion of the will) and of salvation (denial of the will) is the great truth which constitutes the essence of Christianity, while most of what remains is only the clothing of it, the husk or accessories. Therefore Jesus Christ ought always to be conceived in the universal, as the symbol or personification of the denial of the will to live, but never as an individual, whether according to his mythical history given in the Gospels, or according to the probably true history which lies at the foundation of this. — WWR Book 4

2) The "already divinely chosen", "group of elect" is not what I think Schopenhauer is going for in his notion of "grace", rather he is referring to the Protestant Christian notion that there is no contingency related to salvation (complete denial of the will to non-being). That is to say, "If I do this, then I salvation will happen". If this was the case, then cause-and-effect would be in effect and that already presupposes the operations of the will. Therefore and salvation-proper would take place by some non-causal capacity of the individual. This has always been there perhaps for some characters, to be realized, but one cannot tie it to a specific causal reason.

I see here that faith is a type of knowing, perhaps divine knowing. In our language, "knowing" is a verb, an action. Is there a divine knowing possible in the form of an existential reality that can be practiced within the natural world? — ucarr

No, this is just more about the non-causal type of salvation that is not contingent. The "knowing" would be something akin to a gnosis that one "reaches" (but again it's all very hard to describe being that "reaches" would indicate causality and thus explicitly not what he characterizes salvation).

What comes to mind as a possible alternative to non-existence is something akin to the virtual body of Jesus on earth. — ucarr

Well, he did talk about Jesus being a "spirt" of sorts, but again even this would be a metaphor to Schopenhauer, as he didn't care about the Christian mythos related to Jesus. It's simply the idea of salvation through a higher knowledge.

I wonder if the passage described here might better be characterized by some label other than "suicide." What about the idea of replacing "suicide" with "ascension"? Might Jesus' total surrender of his will to God have been the form of his ascension from the cave?

I've thought of ascension as a type of explosion that creates instead of destroys. In this context it might be the creative explosion of the will. With its explosion, the will merges into the Divinity. — ucarr

Yes perhaps, but then this is purely metaphorical. It would have to simply be instructive in what is happening to one's will. Remember, Schopenhauer's whole thesis is about "denial of the Will". That is to say, it's a negation. Thus things like "merge" and "creative explosion" would have to be in the negative meaning, it would have to be about the negation of one's will. It is thus so thoroughly denies (by some higher gnosis, I guess, given by grace), that one is like nothing, non-being. Again, very hard to describe in words, but we can get a sense.

As with most of my threads that come to a few pages, I recommend reading from the beginning to see how the conversation has unfolded, which might inform more of the ideas and the dialectic already at play.

However, there doesnt seem to be any reason for why suicide isn't the conclusion here, since non-experience will always have less suffering compared to the little in withdrawl. If you factor in the value of others, then it implies efilism (action towards human extinction). The fact you dont come to these conclusions suggests to me that you either dont realise this is the logical conclusion, or that you do have some value for desire aswell, although I dont know how that factors into your belief that withdrawl is still positive (seeing as that seems to imply suffering is valued more than desire). — Ourora Aureis

I am an ardent antinatalist- not so sure about "efilist". As for suicide, indeed if you read how I'm interpreting Schopenhauer, the ascetic man's final demise is suicide-through-starvation, with a moment of "grace" beforehand. That's how I interpret how he foresees any redemption of Will. Being that Schopenhauer's conception of will-to-live is tied so thoroughly to the subject/object and the Principle of Sufficient Reason, the physical manifestation would surely cease functioning (to us, the still living), it would seem. Thus, I don't think Schopenhauer's version of "grace" (redemption) would be fully realized by a Buddha that is "enlightened" yet is still living. I think it would fully be someone who died a sort of "ascetic's death". That's just my interpretation of his notion of ascetic saintliness though.

As far as the OP, well, it was a milder version of all this really, recommending that we are not all going to be ascetic saints. Schopenhauer thought only certain characters were up to this, most weren't. But, as practical advice, I thought it such that social entanglements are a good place to start to reduce drama and the convoluted disappointments and despair that comes from it. It also provided a launching point for explaining how social engagements- despite popular opinion/media are not as fully conducive to flourishing as we may think. The conventional wisdom is to find good friends and partners/lovers. But perhaps this is like a mirage, an illusion that in the end brings more baggage than good. Contra popular wisdom, social entanglements almost always lead to worse outcomes, despite the initial "highs" one gets from their initial engagement- in preventing the "lonely" feelings of the isolated individual.

The "middle way" is probably one of the most misunderstood terms when referring to Buddhism. For old-school Theravadans, the "middle way" actually means living a monk's life -- with eating only one meal a day, wearing only robes, not engaging in sex, and all the other rules of a monk's life.

For those Buddhists, death alone doesn't solve anything (regardless whether it's by starvation or gunshot wound). It's rebirth that needs to be ended, in order to end suffering. — baker

You misinterpret me. First off, I am proposing an even more extreme version in the Schopenhauer brand of asceticism. I am claiming that in his version, even the Middle Way of the Buddhist (Theravadans or otherwise), is not enough. Rather, that in his conception, whereby Will is extricabley tied up on physical existence, I see no way that the ascetic is physiologically still alive after their "grace" of salvation (spiritual redemption into non-being). It seems in his way, even the monk is not going to get there. And it is doubtful a Buddha who stays around to teach his enlightenment has actually become non-being.. Perhaps on their way.. I get the impression that the ascetic death is basically one of the only occasions.. perhaps a sort of grace before death and then (to us, the people left), a dead person.

In modern politcally correct culture, it's not acceptable to be ruthlessly selective in whom one associates with and for what purpose. — baker

This would be completely anathema advice to the what the ascetic viewpoint. It precisely leans into the attachments and that which causes more pain. The goal-seeking here, and the many sources for entanglements in drama/disappointment will be part of any human interaction. Even the calculative aspect of selection you speak of already sets the stage prior to the engagement.

And yet it appears to be possible to come up with such a set of values and goals, and thus priorities, accompanied by sufficient pride, that the vicissitudes of life are a minimal problem or source of suffering. This way, one is still engaged with the world (and not minimally), and yet doesn't suffer. Pride and priorities. — baker

I am not quiet sure what you are saying. If the ascetic follows it all the way through, they kill themselves through starvation. If not, I guess minimizing the addiction (the delusion of what's good that is really not.. like social interactions), is a good start. And thus my post here:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/945569

It's telling that people generally prefer to think in black and white, all or nothing terms, rather than reconceptualizing the situation entirely. — baker

To be fair, the most common view for almost anything is "balance". I'm actually bucking that advise with what you may call "black-and-white" thinking. It's extreme and unsettling (when we usually think in terms of common advise terms like Golden Mean-type / Taoist koan "balance" or modern self-help stock strategies) for sure, not necessarily wrong.

Sure, withdrawing is fine and "leads to greater happiness" as long as someone else is paying your bills (such as in the case of Buddhist monks), or at least as long as your job is comfortable enough and you can earn money with relative ease.

But if such is not the case, one has to stay in the rat race, and be a rat, or be defeated. — baker

Absolutely. But I did say this:

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. — schopenhauer1

That is to say, the best some might be able to do is limit engagements, not completely eliminate them.