Oh! My mistake :D Maybe I thought you were other person.

I didn’t.

I was not talking to you.

In direct response to the question posed there is an obvious thing to do …

Do not except Schopenhauer’s view as the only valid view. He met his conclusion and came up with an answer to it (kind of) because it was his thoughts he knew best.

Schopenhauer makes good points but I certainly do not agree with everything he says - nor do I with any philosopher/person dead or alive.

To gain a feeling of ‘unity’ perhaps trying some psychedelic drug would help out there. I have personally been lucky to experience something I would describe as ‘more real than real’ (even though that makes no sense!) and there is no reason I can see that every individual is not capable of the same BUT I cannot give them the experience.

Ironically it was a state where all such human existential troubles seemed ridiculously childish … but I admit now that the effects of the experience have dulled with time. I relate all this to what Jung describes as the process of individuation. That may be a place to begin a journey to an answer for you. REALLY though, it is not an important problem … but you will not believe me and nor should you.

Well, we are wired to take note of novelty so being ‘content’ (as I would put it) is not really going to last indefinitely.

I still feel like you are using ‘exist’ in a way I cannot quite get to grips with.

I understand that some people just view human life as ‘eat, fuck and die’ too. I think that is a little shallow though. On the most basic level we map the world onto our and our understanding onto the world.

Familiarity is just that. Someone living forever in some mud hut may not find it at all fascinating or fun, yet if someone else visited they may be in wonder and awe at such a ‘rustic’ existence and point out some things to the person who occupies the mud hut that they had forgotten about.

An ever adjusting perspective is ‘living’ whilst going through the motions is just ‘existing’. To merely ‘be’ is not a ‘mere’ thing at all. Contentment will eventually lead to existential boredom because with nothing new there is no life. Some people are more open than others though. I am sure many are ‘content’ with what they have because they have a way of viewing their life in a certain way.

I certainly don’t buy into the idea of ‘seeking happiness’ as I find that term rather drab and meaningless. As for ‘meaning’ that is something we wrestle with and it is that that brings on existential questions.

That ‘meaning’ is something we construct is probably closer to what you are concerned with here maybe?

Hence parenthesis for ‘replace’

Read more. I don’t have my copy at hand to literally type in the exact passage. I’ve done so MANY times before.

The bit with ‘negative sense only’. Noumenon in the ‘positive sense’ is … well, to refer to it we can only do ‘negatively’. That is the point.

Is that your view or just a random sentence?

Empiricism is something. I am more inclined to lean towards empiricism I would say. What does what it does, does what it does. If it makes no logical sense to me it still does what it does.

The noumenal is not. The very term ‘noumenal’ is a ‘phenomenal’ (both technically and literally!).

Nothing is not nothing. Nothing is the way to refer to the absence of something somewhere not nothing nowhere (because that is meaningless drivel much like ‘potato on yellow under the is and but of it one two trousers’)

@Jack Cummins The basis of it is not that complicated really. That e taken on by many people in different ways is just part of a human’s will to own something expressed by another.

Nietzsche’s concern was how humanity would ‘replace’ religion. Layered within this are many questions like how do we act, why do we act, what do we need/want and we crave for in our inner most core (what we will)?

My view - related to this topic - is that we are all aware that we are more than what we are. Facing up to that and fully realising it is what life is about. The End.

Study physics instead of consulting naval gazers maybe? If Aristotle is your first point of reference I should not need to inform you that things have moved on in the last 2000 years.

Some questions are philosophical and some are not.

@schopenhauer1

It is hard for me to guess where you lie between buddhist views and Schopenhauer’s views on things so just say what you can in your words if possible please.

I do not think there is a simple solution or way to express such things but I will outline something that I find puzzling regarding these views in general.

“Compassion” is a primary focus it seems for both buddihism and Schopenhauer in terms of morality. Compassion is framed as experiencing the suffering of others in some capacity. Also, the aim to end all suffering is part of the doctrine of both it seems?

This obviously poses a problem that looks more or less like ‘the better of two evils’ in the sense that one cannot show ‘compassion’ and not ‘suffer’. So what they both seem to hope for is to ‘reduce suffering’ yet (for buddhists at least) this is embedded in the ‘belief’ that it can be nullified completely.

As for the ‘default position’ in terms of ‘boredom’. I view ‘boredom’ as a kind of stress due to lack of arousal. Basic hand to mouth living certainly has not been the norm for human living as far as we can tell - even back into prehistory. Leisure time is present for most animals, but the difference with humans seems to be our cosmological view (our ability to understand our physical space as ‘finite’). Maybe our recognition of our limitations is what causes an attitude of ‘striving’ (beyond basic biological functions including mating and reproduction)?

Then there is the relation of ‘mindfulness’ and ‘boredom’. The act of ‘mindfulness’ as a meditative technique is interesting here as it is not about ‘striving’ for a goal, nor is it really ‘boredom’. This technique is more or less like boredom in that it is a place where a new perspective appears from the unconscious.

The main issue I have personally with how you word our position is with the terms ‘existence’ and ‘living’ perhaps? As I said previously, what you seem to frame as ‘boredom’ I call mere ‘existence’ - a disconnection from ‘living a life’. This is one reason I am not a big fan of buddhism as it seems more or less like an easy ‘escape’ from life ironically.

Anyway, it is complex topic so pick through what you can and offer up any of your views if you wish.

I imagine you can this being viewed as wanting something for nothing. Do you view a ‘good life’ as getting something for nothing perpetually without worries of ‘burdens’?

Where do you stand on buddhist ideas and nihilism?

Because you have next to no idea what mathematics is.

Like I said though, it is not exactly easy to arrive at a vague understanding and I didn’t realise that merely manipulating numbers (such as what is done is high school and first year of university) is equivalent to calling yourself an artist because you have bought a set of paints.

Having the the ’equipment’ necessary to carry out a task does not mean the task is automatically carried out. That is the best analogy I can think of right now … other than to say it truly is pure magic! :)

If you are only familiar with high school mathematics then you have literally no clue what mathematics actual is.

At your level you are basically learning about tools and preparation. It has nothing to do with mathematics. Most people have no idea what mathematics is and I myself didn’t realise until I was way into my thirties.

I think I know what you mean now.

‘Existing’ rather than ‘living’ is how I differentiate. Others say ‘to live an empty existence’.

The main difference is you see ‘truth’ in ‘existence’ but not in ‘living’. Why is that?

From what I am getting here you are saying ‘dissatisfaction’ is ‘suffering’. We are never FULLY ‘satisfied’ so all life is ‘suffering’.

Correct summation?

Note: There is no premeditated ‘gotcha’ awaiting.

Although you still haven’t noted the difference between ‘striving’ and ‘challenging yourself’ as far as I can see.

I was not looking for a ‘gotcha’. I was simply asking you to answer my questions as best you can.

That is all. Thanks for trying … eventually.

@schopenhauer1 I would still like a reply to the other question. I’ll ask once more.

What is the difference between ‘striving’ and ‘challenging yourself’?

The most obvious problem that follows is if EVERYTHING in waking life is ‘dissatisfaction’ then the term ‘dissatisfaction’ is fairly meaningless as no antonym for it can rightly exist.

I guess this means ‘satisfaction’ is a non-thing.

So you meant everything NOT “just about everything”. Okay.

Explain to me how ‘striving’ and ‘challenging yourself’ are different please. That was not really a response I can make sense of.

Try saying X is … and Y is … and that is why they are different.

If “just about everything” in waking life is ‘dissatisfaction’ what is not ‘dissatisfaction’?

As an answer to the title … BADLY more often than not :D

Because you misunderstand the uses of ‘feminine’ and ‘masculine’. Like I said, they don’t mean ‘male’ and ‘female’ nor do ‘feminine traits’ (which compassion IS) mean they are exclusively an item of either sex.

It is an old fashioned generalisation that has survived in the terminological categorisation.

“No” … how are they different to you?

If it is notthe right question why is it not. It is one I am asking.

It doesn’t matter what your opinion is here.

Compassion is classed as a feminine trait. You cannot simply change how language is used to suit our needs and beliefs and expect everyone else to get on board … which is kind of what some here are arguing against when saying female and woman are the same thing. Colloquially I agree that gender and sex and used synonymously and we’ve yet to fully adjust to technical terminology.

If rules contradict each other are they rules?

A big problem I have with Schopenhauer framing life viewed in reference to ‘suffering’ is that he states that all ‘fighting’ and ‘struggling’ involves suffering. Also, the idea of ‘disssatifcation’ only holds if the world is viewed as black and white, where people are either satisfied or not with no apparent room for partial dis/satisfaction.

If we ‘suffer’ in the form of ‘dissatisfaction’ (weak form of suffering in my mind) then is this not balanced by places where we are satisfied in the very same moment?

As a simple example of human life I take satisfaction in drawing and I am sometimes dissatisfied with what I produce somewhere along the way too. The ‘suffering’ of dissatisfaction here is merely seen as a way to reflect on my situation and what I am attempting/producing.

If this is then taken into the realm of moral theory then I am assuming you and Schopenhauer are/were striving (‘suffering’) to produce a better moral theory. It kind if follows that we should not strive for a better moral theory because such is suffering and suffering is necessarily worse than not suffering (as you have stated elsewhere).

Maybe you can comment on this a bit?

Thanks

Is ‘striving’ the same as ‘challenging yourself’ in your mind?

Is ‘striving’ necessarily something negative, as it appears you are implying it is?

Are all hobbies, loves, likes and passions merely purposeful ‘distractions’ from the reality of inevitable existential angst?

Also, I have always been puzzled by the idea that asceticism is somehow viewed as ‘abstaining’ when it is actually just a means to achieve the best situation. It cannot be a selfless act if it made as if it is thought to be ‘better’ than what others are doing.

It is the idea of ‘doctrine’ itself I have issue with in any religious format.

I addressed this all on other page by agreeing with Praxis. I was just checking for clarification of how they meant ‘feminine’.

It was cleared up. End of story … you probably missed it.

The KEY point was that a ‘feminine’ trait is not a ‘female’ trait. The example I gave was ‘compassion’ … clearly men and women both possess ‘compassion’.

If we are talking about personality traits and differences between the sexes; there is not a massive difference at all. In fact, taking any random woman or man from the street and having them take a personality test then showing said test to a qualified psychologist and asking them ‘which is a man and which is woman’ would get you the answer ‘I have no clue whatsoever’.

The differences are averages across huge samples. Physiologically there are quite distinct differences between men and women. Psychologically the differences are all that pronounced at all.

Therefore ‘feminine’ and ‘masculine’ traits are, at best vaguely associated with one sex or the other, but it is nothing like a hard fast rule of thumb. Due to basic distribution the differences do stick out more often than not at the extremes.

And please note that ‘pink’ is generally considered a ‘feminine’ colour today around the globe. This is a modern cultural shift away from Catholicism - blue for virgin Mary was associated with girls and pink boys.

I hope that clears up any misunderstanding here. If not so be it.

So compassion is a feminine characteristic and you know of no men who are compassionate? Maybe noting that will help you understand that mere categories set up for convenience are not actual reflections of reality. As I said, ‘race’ is meaningless in its scientific technical sense when people talk about being this or that ‘race’.

You have never studied and Spanish, French or German? There are plenty of example where mundane objects are given masculine or feminine labels.

Then there is pink. Is pink ‘masculine’ or ‘feminine’? Did you know that only a few generations ago newborn boys were dressed in pink and girls in blue.

Trends change. Biology doesn’t - at least not so fast.

Colours, tables, houses … the list goes on.

But the point was that it is an old term (like ‘race’) that has morphed into some other meaning depending on context.

I would recommend looking for some discord channels that suit. There was a guy here who invited people to join book chat thing. Good entry level stuff I think.

Here it is a mixed bag. Sometimes it get ‘philosophical’ sometimes it is like a school playground :D

Okay. All good. Just fishing for clarity :)

It is a VERY good point that shows the problem some people have with distinguishing ‘gender’ from ‘sex’.

Thanks

Feminine does not mean female any more than masculine means male. It is unfortunate that those are the terms used now just like ‘race’ is used to describe cultural groups rather than actual different ‘races’.

A terminology overhaul is quite a difficult thing to do and takes time.

Where all of this started, for me, was with the conviction that ideas (not information) are real in their own right, and not because they're derived from or supersede on (neuro)physical matter. — Wayfarer

Can you expand this a bit? ‘Ideas’ ?

As Stephen Fry put it “bone cancer in children?”

Thanks for the cryptic bullshit your highness