I do think that the philosophy of pessimism can probably do this to some extent, almost as a form of consolation. — Jack Cummins

Yes, to reiterate your point, I think that pessimists should form "Communities of Catharsis" groups to vent about the suffering and see each other as "fellow sufferers", which is a term Schop wrote about in how we should address each other to remind us that we are part of the same scheme.

It is interesting that pessimism and asceticism can be linked because in some ways it could give rise to the view that nothing matters and that, therefore, everything is permitted, or this may be more of a modern take on nihilism. — Jack Cummins

I think this is a misconception of pessimism. Pessimism, is not Big Lebowski-style "Nihilism" (nothing matters/ no ethos). To the contrary, philosophical pessimism is very sensitive to the suffering of the world and others, and thus elevates compassion as the main essence of ethical thinking/actions.

I think a bit puzzled why you think that monks are pessimists, and not sure why asceticism comes into the picture necessarily. — Jack Cummins

Because asceticism is one of Schop's key ethical/metaphysical concepts as written about in WWR book 4.

See here for a preview: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_World_as_Will_and_Representation#Ethics_(Book_IV)

Old Schop is an arch-pessimist. — 180 Proof

Very true.

E.M. Cioran, like Samuel Beckett, is much more of an absurdist. Nietzsche & Kafka too. — 180 Proof

Agreed.. but is @Jack Cummins looking for pessimist literature or absurdist? If pessimist-proper, go with Schopenhauer. Jack, have you ever actually read Schop's World as Will and Representation? Perhaps get some books on it, either secondary literature or the "thing-itself" haha.. I threw a Schopy terms in there :D.

Why not Schopenhauer?

Also, think of an ascetic monk-type. They may follow doctrines of philosophical pessimism (maybe they wouldn't even think to call it that), and have a "happy" everyday attitude.

Certainly, it is more common for a pessimist to follow philosophical pessimism like Schopenhauer.

It may be possible to think of suffering on a philosophical level when one is enjoying the comforts of daily existence. — Jack Cummins

I think so. You can still say something like, "Oh look at me here.. I am desiring X, but yet another bubble of dissatisfaction being acted upon. If only I was to get out of this false illusion of attainment of the goal".. and then munch on your favorite potato chip, watching a movie you like, and laughing with a friend.

What I wonder is what happens to the person who adopts the philosophy when he or she comes face to face with suffering on a personal level? — Jack Cummins

Then one is already equipped haha.

Even Wikipedia makes the distinction here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pessimism

Also, if I said, "You have a stoic look on your face today" and then said "See I know the philosophy of Stoicism".. I hope you would make the distinction of the common parlance of the word "stoic" as it is used in everyday speech and "Stoic" the person who follows Stoicism. And yes, like the Greek statues.. the two might overlap :D.

I don’t think so. Would be very interested in meeting one but the “thematic discrepancy” would be too much I think. I find that generally, one’s attitude towards life in general is a huge factor in their philosophy. You can’t be optimistic for long while thinking that life is inherently suffering. — khaled

I didn't say it was common, I am saying there is a distinction though. You can't just lump it together in a philosophy forum and call it good.

Is not Buddhist doctrine but this isn’t the thread for it. — khaled

If you wanna give your reasonings why it isn't philosophical pessimism, or explain how its not Buddhist doctrine go ahead. Buddhism has many schools of thought and probably many interpretations, I am giving a general characteristic as far as I see it. Life is suffering.. due to desire, 8 fold path, nirvana are the main tenets. The desire and all that, very similar to Schopenhauer and Will., etc.. you know this though I think.

I would imagine that it is not that there is a fundamental difference in the nature of the commonplace understanding of pessimism, but more about the depth of the idea. If anything, the history of pessimism and optimism is probably one which weaves its way through the whole of philosophy and other systems of thoughts. It also is behind the scenes of culture and politics. The most extreme version is probably nihilism. One form of it which is probably not the most obvious is in death metal music. You would probably be surprised to know that was the version of it that made me wonder about it.

My own understanding of it takes it as a position of viewing the future with a sense of doom and futility, and an overriding sense that there is no way of finding positive solutions. — Jack Cummins

No, no, and no.

Common place pessimism is a disposition, a personality-trait perhaps, or even a mood. It is not the same as philosophical pessimism. The common place pessimism is one where they think the glass is "half empty", so only see the negatives of a situation or only predict negative outcomes. However, philosophical pessimism is generally a metaphysical and epistemological stance on the inherent suffering or negative quality of the world. So Schopenhauer is a philosophical pessimist in that his worldview is that life is a suffering inherently due to Will and its playing out in the phenomenal epistemic stage. The only way out is denying the Will so completely, as to have a sort of Will-less state (i.e. ascetic saint). Buddhism is pretty much the same thing. The world is inherently suffering and one's epistemic illusion is keeping one from escaping it, thus a path towards nirvana, etc.

So with that being said, one can be a "happy-go-lucky" Schopenhaurian philosophical pessimist. That is to say, one can have a generally happy disposition and attitude in everyday life (so not a common place pessimist), but still hold to the views of philosophical pessimism.

You MUST differentiate the difference between dispositional (commonplace) notions of pessimism and philosophical pessimism proper (e.g. Schopenhauer/Buddhism).

I'm not sure about unresolved, but it seems like the ideal state for Plato/Buddha/Schopenhauer seems to be one of changeless stasis of sorts. In Plato's conception, the world is corrupted by time and space in a way. It is corrupted by the materiality of the world somehow. It's hard to see in Plato qua Plato how he resolves the world of being with the world of becoming. The world of becoming "participates" with being and the Forms, but how that is, is a bit vague. Schopenhauer does a much better of job of fleshing out this idea in terms of some form of salvation through asceticism.. there is some nirvana one can perceive according to Schop by denying one's will which would be akin to negating Will as one's own will is what is one and the same with the illusion of time/space/causality and thus there is a way to get beyond it for the rare saint-like person that he describes in Book 4 I believe of WWR.

But since, if the antinatalist is successful in convincing other people not to procreate, the potential future people will not exist anyway, so no compassion or empathy for them, so the point is moot. — baker

I've written hundreds of posts on the non-identity argument against antinatalism. A future person would exist otherwise that would be harmed. I can refer you to more expanded versions of this debate if you want.

Compassion and empathy are meaningful only in relation to already existing entities. — baker

Not true, otherwise people would have no consideration whatsoever for the outcome and welfare of a future person, baby, child.

The compassion and empathy you're talking about are idle perversions. — baker

Not sure why it can't be extended to people that would exist but are prevented from doing so if otherwise not precautionary.

It's empathy and compassion for existing people -- such as for those who are burdened with looking after orphans or the defective. Social norms are there to protect and serve the normal, the majority. — baker

Defective? Damn look who's harsh here. Ok, well, new social norms have and can be implemented. One where compassion extends to people who might exist, but can be prevented from doing so. Compassion the harm that could have taken place.

But there are not going to be any future sufferers! — baker

If suffering is almost a guarantee once born, then yes there would be.

It looks more like the final drop of pleasure that the antinatalist is trying to squeeze out of life. — baker

Final drop of pleasure-- because it is suggesting to current people born to not screw with other people by procreating them? They are not saying to not do X, Y, Z for themselves. There's many ways one can try to find happiness without it involving other people's states of being.

merely dilettante pessimism. — baker

You'd have to explain that. Pessimism doesn't mean an utter inability to do what one doesn't want to.

Yes, we've been over this. I'm not seeing anything special in this. You need to break eggs in order to make an omelette. Most people don't cry over the eggs being broken. — baker

I should get a shirt that says "Most people". Most people have negative evaluations at some point. This is not a rare thing.

What do you mean by "find comfort"?
Are you saying that you see the futility of life as it is usually lived, but you nevertheless find ways to feel comforted? By what, how? — baker

It goes back to my usual categorization of basic human drives- survival (through socio-economic-cultural means in the human animal), comfort-seeking (not necessary to survive but nice to have.. get warmer/cooler, clean the house, etc.), and entertainment (you don't need it for survival, or comfort, but out of restlessness and novelty in one's life). Of course, any X experience can have all three overlapping or in any combination.. like being entertained by cleaning, and its more comfortable, and you get paid for it..etc.

But proponents of antinatalism are doing the same thing: they want to see other people stop procreating because they (ie. the antinatalists) have a vision that just needs to happen for the other people. — baker

But it's stopping other people from creating new people. It's not stopping other people from doing what they want to themselves.

Antinatalism, precisely because of its specific anti-life content, is not a stance that can be backed up by empathy or compassion for other people. — baker

Antinatalism is about empathy or compassion for the future people that would be created by the procreators.

If someone argues for selective natalism/selective antinatalism (as has typically been the case throughout human history, such as in the form of forbidding sex outside of marriage, killing defective newborns, or stigmatizing unwed mothers and their children), then this can still be motivated by empathy or compassion for one of more parties involved. — baker

This actually seems unempathetic.. being more akin to eugenics and nefarious programs in the past. I also don't see how shaming people is compassionate.. Rather, it's just more social pressures to see a certain outcome- ends justify the means. Antinatalists don't usually shame as a strategy though I'm sure some individuals do. Rather, they present the logic which may be hard pill to swallow but not trying to shame one after the fact.

But with antinatalism, there can be no such motivation -- other than to please the ego of the antinatalist (who will be dead within a few decades anyway, so why care about him). — baker

The motivation is to prevent future sufferers from suffering. That seems pretty egoless being that the antinatalist has nothing themselves to gain from it, since they already exist and all.

I'm talking at the very beginning.

True true on all of this. I don't have much to add except that in hindsight it looked like people were watching this in slow motion but weren't acting.. They were pretending that COVID related deaths only happened in China or a certain province in China. Like...oh there it goes to other countries.. but China's deaths are in the hundreds.. that couldn't happen in other countries, etc. etc.

I think the shock of closing international borders was too much to fathom. But as @Andrew M pointed out there were groups very aware of this need right away. The two psychological factors working against people perhaps at that time were what that article highlighted- the idea of futility (it's inevitable and nothing can really be done anyways) and paranoia (you're going to shut travel down for this?). The uncertainty wasn't taken seriously, clearly.

Yeah, it's clear they didn't know how serious this was going to be. It looks like they thought this would be more like a localized SARS. However, by the end of January, it was clear the virus was in dozens of other countries, and it was an UNKNOWN of how deadly it could be. Like South Korea, the US should have closed its borders to all foreign travel coming in and out at that time.. Instead there was two months of not doing anything until too late. People were waiting for community transmission. Ridiculous.

This is where having experts and advisors that understand the nature of pandemics is important. The president's call shouldn't depend on being able to predict the future since no-one can. — Andrew M

True, so having the right people in the forefront of the subject matter that is at hand. Don't listen to an economist regarding an issue of public health maybe. But, I don't know the full story, wasn't there conflicting public health advise too though? How does one pick the correct one? I think you answered it though.. If one is in this much uncertainty about something that is known to be deadly, take the most cautious approach, not for the economy, but for the public health which would have been shutting down all borders as soon as possible, as that recommendation stated.

It is of course up to the leader to do this and convince the people it's right.

Well, it's good to know there were people there giving their more accurate predictions. I just wonder what it would take from a leader to listen to this kind of argument rather than the doubts placed from the other advisors. Although Trump certainly didn't/doesn't have the capacity for these critical judgements, I don't know someone else, even from a different party, would have done the right things either, especially in regards to international travel. Of course, with Trump you can add many layers of nefarious behavior in terms of how much he knew and still tried to make seem not a big deal and was going to end soon.. etc. Laughably false.

Because not doing it is also harmful. To the people already here. — khaled

So we've argued this point before.. You are going to do the lifeguard argument, I presented what I thought about that. Is that where you are going with it again?

If you want to. But that got us nowhere last time. — khaled

Right, so that's why I don't get what's the point of commenting. We've argued more or less the same things before. Also it's going to now be Tom possibly piling onto your arguments rather than making an original one.

But can Tom make his own arguments? Now this changes the path this takes. I dont think his comments are necessarily an echo chamber. Its not like you are getting a 1up for adding your idea, I now have to choose to argue your particular line of thought.

And what do you actually mean by "preventing the thread from becoming an echo chamber" anyways? If I am talking to other people, and no one else is "echoing" what I am saying, that would not apply.

Human beings are behavior. — Tom Storm

Don't think it addresses what I said. People are making humans to see behavior. One has to be there for the other to happen.

People being born doesn't really concern me. I am more interested in behavior once they are here. — Tom Storm

It concerns me that people want to see behaviors and thus create people to see them carried out. A bizarre political move. But it is political as it is one person affecting another, and it deals with the superstructure. I am very concerned people want to see X from another person because they have a vision that just needs to happen for the other person.

They did close the border to China. They just didn't realize that It was in the process of exploding in Italy. COVID19 symptoms may not show up for two weeks after infection. A lot of infected people never have severe symptoms, if any at all. It's mutated into a very contagious pathogen. All these factors allow it to sneak up on a population. — frank

To be fair, I think the virus was in the US MUCH earlier than in March. However, you are making excuses. Once that shit was seen to be out of China, if there was ANYONE who had the foresight or wisdom to shutdown ALL borders, where were they, and why weren't they listened to? I already answered that though.

Also, Trump did NOT shut down all travel from China, only a partial shutdown.. It doesn't matter, it needed to be ALL international travel. Also, I agree that both sides were unhelpful in this stage for differing reasons. But the person in the executive branch WAS Trump and his people, so at the end, it was their decision.

One of the biggest problems early on was a delay in testing created by the CDC. — frank

Sure..that didn't need to be in place for someone with balls to have said CLOSE THE FUCKN BORDER EARLY!

Hey Schop1!

I got to run to an appointment, let me get back to you cause those are some intriguing thoughts.... — 3017amen

Hello! Cool.

Perhaps you would like to comment on this statement I was discussing with Banno:

For US that wouldn't have been early enough. Someone would have had to declare it before even the WHO did, and that takes real insight and wisdom that no one had. Imagine someone saying, "Hey let's lock everything down.. this shit is going to be ridiculously deadly.. here's the projection!!" And then having someone take them seriously. And then having people agree with this without someone saying, "You anti-(China, other country) xenaphobe! Or someone saying, "You fuckwit.. you are going to shut down the economy for speculation on this? Look it's way over there!" Well, hindsight is always 20/20 and no one is ever wrong on any of these critical decisions when they were made. — schopenhauer1

That's incorrect. — frank

That's totally correct. To have the most narcissistic person in power of the executive branch during a pandemic that is about how others are affected.. Eek. There were no great decisions made.. He's lucky there were people willing to subvert him.

peak experiences. — Jack Cummins

Yes, but his ideal for this was generally as a socially-conscious person..But I get what you're saying.. Either way, one represents actively embracing the world, one is denying it. No mountain climbing adventures for Schopenhauer. Sit, deny the will, don't eat much.. escape.

I'm curious why this matters so much to you. Do you feel you were thrown into the world (apologies to Heidegger) and that this is unfair and has lead to suffering? — Tom Storm

IF you want a whole thread on the subject of the phrase "thrown into the world" and how it's used as a colloquialism, not a metaphysical statement, see my 5000 other posts on the subject :p. So, if you wanna go there, I'll just send you links to the lengthy threads on the matter.

And, what do you think?

For US that wouldn't have been early enough. Someone would have had to declare it before even the WHO did, and that takes real insight and wisdom that no one had. Imagine someone saying, "Hey let's lock everything down.. this shit is going to be ridiculously deadly.. here's the projection!!" And then having someone take them seriously. And then having people agree with this without someone saying, "You anti-(China, other country) xenaphobe! Or someone saying, "You fuckwit.. you are going to shut down the economy for speculation on this? Look it's way over there!" Well, hindsight is always 20/20 and no one is ever wrong on any of these critical decisions when they were made.

However, I can see the relevance of Maslow's ideas, because he is suggesting that when one need is met this becomes a basis for moving on to the next one up in the hierarchy. Also, it would be easy to compare the whole idea of desires with needs, because both could be seen as arising from the essence of human nature. — Jack Cummins

Yes, but just pointing out that this wouldn't be the salvation-worldview of Schop. Maslow is essentially saying that "there is somewhere to go, and someone to be, and something to do". Schopenhauer is saying that this is the illusion. Stop. Rest. Stillness. Stasis.

Maslow's ideal is something akin to a famous social activist or scientist. Schopenhauer's is the Buddha.

Not sure what you mean. Shutdowns occur here when there are signs of local transmission. — Banno

I'm talking about when this first began.. the real shutdown that should have happened at the very beginning. I wonder if there was anyone advocating for complete shutdown of international travel

What do antinatalists get or hope to get if other people stop producing children? — baker

Less people who suffer and forced into X system that can be negatively evaluated. If one cares about the ethic, then one advocates strongly for it. There's also a justice thing.. Unjust to bring more laborers, suffering, extend the superstructure because you want it.

I'm interested in your thoughts on the first point though..
No one from either side of the aisle would have advocated mass shutdowns of international travel when it was most needed.. probably mid-February.. That would have taken foresight and wisdom no one had.

And here inevitably implicit weird justifications of the following ensue:
1. Protestant work ethic.. people need to be laborers so they can be happy laboring (work sets you free!)

2. People need to work for a future technological utopia or purely to create new technology (better plastic, more screens, yay we go to Jupiter and Beyond!)

Of course no one by necessity "needs" anything prior to birth, as there is no "one" there. So, it is purely to see various ideologies carried out, like people who are put into existence to labor and its supposed ensuing "meaning" from the laboring that "has" to be had by "someone". Odd.

People see having children as a way to escape from the system. For many people having a child recalibrates who they are and rebuilds the world. — Tom Storm

Yet having a child shouldn't be about the person having the child, but the child itself. It affects someone else.. They could also meditate and take art classes.. but this pursuit somehow gets a pass even if it (excuse my French) is fucking with another person in the most profound way possible (their very state of being put into the world and having to contend with that). Post-facto justifications of good upbringing hopefulness, does not negate that one is putting yet another laborer in the economic-systemic fray. Why is this a good thing to do to someone else? Antinatalists want to stop this "pressing" of more laborers.. even if people don't think about their procreation in those terms, they are doing it, so advocacy to get more awareness of this. The parents are voting "YES MORE LABORERS!" (even if unwittingly). The antinatlists are saying, stop.