Could there be a more naked example of appeal to authority than this? — csalisbury

Utter nonsense. I was pointing out your unwarranted disposal of the principle of charity.

Slavery in and of itself is not an institution — csalisbury

Good, so we're done here.

So there you have your stock answers. Eat your heart out.

I find it hilarious that people in this thread smugly believe that slavery is a defeater of the argument in question. Do you think Marquez, a trained philosopher, is going to reply, "Aw, shucks, you got me!" Or: "You're right, slavery is totally a basic institution I would defend." The uncharitable gall it takes to assume such things is astounding.

Secondly, defending slavery doesn't follow from his argument, for it isn't clear that it meets, or would meet on Marquez's grounds, the definitions of "basic" and "institution." A basic institution is not meant to refer to simply anything people have done for a certain amount of time. People have murdered, tortured, enslaved, etc other people from time immemorial, but to call these "basic institutions" is absurd and could only be done facetiously.

Because, from an empirical perspective, the same underlying brain processes involved in the perception of color are at work in both A and B. They do not change. Similarly, putting lower octane fuel in one car and higher octane fuel in another doesn't change the processes of the same internal combustion engine in both, even though the results of putting in different fuel might cause one to run more efficiently than the other.

For what?

In your example, cognition isn't operating any differently, it's just that the results of said cognition are not the same.

If you have to ask that question, then I suspect the philosophy bug hasn't yet bitten you. If you do not feel the pursuit of wisdom to be something akin to a need, without which you would be the poorer and utterly despairing, then the "stock" answers that can be given to your question will probably not have much effect.

Yes, we all think the same way, but what we think and the quality of our thinking is obviously different.

It opens up a huge can of philosophy of language worms that I am not fully conversant in, but suffice it to say that if the Trinity, for example, is an essential property of God, and not an accidental one, then to deny this property is not to worship the same God. The referent of the word "God" cannot be the same.

At the very least, I am irritated by people (mostly on the left) who arrogantly bloviate about the alleged self-evidence that Jews, Christians, and Muslims all worship the same God. It's not self-evident and to settle the issue requires knowledge of very abstruse problems in logic and the philosophy of language, ones I freely admit ignorance of myself.

With respect to punishment, one is gratuitous and not proportional to the crime, whereas the other is deserved and proportional.

I have doubts that Christians and Muslims, say, worship the same God, if that's what the comic is trying to claim.

I kinda like that.

To admonish them for not focusing on contingent harms, is a bit misleading as Pessimists rarely focused on contingent harms- it is what makes a Pessimist a Pessimist. It is like admonishing a cat for not being a dog. — schopenhauer1

Very well said. This was one of my repeated objections in this thread. The rest of your post is excellently stated as well.

Is this to say that one is both angel and devil? — Agustino

Metaphorically, it would seem so.

Is the unreality of life equivalent with the fact that life's pleasures are deceitful, and the existence of suffering? — Agustino

This essay is taken from the PP, so I don't think Schopenhauer is speaking with the precision that your reply here is couched in. That being said, I think any idealist philosophy, properly so called, would hold that life is unreal (or less real).

Why not? — Agustino

Because virtue cannot be taught. I know you think the opposite, but I, like Schopenhauer, have never been persuaded of that.

Does one bad action guarantee numberless others will be committed when circumstances permit? — Agustino

It depends on one's character, naturally.

What makes the difference between the two modes of perception? — Agustino

I don't understand the question.

They don't live up to my ideals, true. But I have specifically stated that the actual argument here is that they don't live up the ideals of an active pessimist. They did not advocate what I have articulated to be active pessimism. — darthbarracuda

For what purpose do you try to distinguish them from so called "active" pessimists? I've asked you this before, and I think you will find that your answer circles back around to the fact they they don't live up to your ideals, in which case, my being "pissed off" or whatever you perceive that I am (I wouldn't use such language), is justified.

Are you for real right now? — darthbarracuda

Yes.

This lecture may be of some interest to the denizens of this thread.

I said atheism rejects a religious afterlife like that of heaven, it just so happens to be the case that EVERY SINGLE ATHEIST I have ever met also "just happens" to flat out reject any possibility of afterlife whatsoever, so if that is not saying something about the state of minds of people who believe in atheism I don't know what is (IE belief without evidence). — intrapersona

Which is perhaps due to their materialism or naturalism, then, as opposed to their atheism.

Your post, as I predicted, merely repeats the same basic charges and still reeks of optimism. Like Ixion, we seem to be trapped on a burning wheel that keeps on spinning, and so to avoid the feeling of vertigo were I to fully reply to it, I shall merely say the following. Your basic complaint is still, "these figures didn't quite live up to their own ideals or the ones I propose to the degree that I would like." But I have shown how this is both a ridiculous and impotent complaint, in part because it is something these figures would be apt to agree with you about. So I simply leave you to contemplate the meaning of the following passages:

1 Jesus went to the Mount of Olives. 2 Early in the morning he came again to the temple; all the people came to him, and he sat down and taught them. 3 The scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman who had been caught in adultery, and placing her in the midst 4 they said to him, “Teacher, this woman has been caught in the act of adultery. 5 Now in the law Moses commanded us to stone such. What do you say about her?” 6 This they said to test him, that they might have some charge to bring against him. Jesus bent down and wrote with his finger on the ground. 7 And as they continued to ask him, he stood up and said to them, “Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her.” 8 And once more he bent down and wrote with his finger on the ground. 9 But when they heard it, they went away, one by one, beginning with the eldest, and Jesus was left alone with the woman standing before him. 10 Jesus looked up and said to her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?” 11 She said, “No one, Lord.” And Jesus said, “Neither do I condemn you; go, and do not sin again." (John 8:1-11)

Since character, so far as we understand its nature, is above and beyond time, it cannot undergo any change under the influence of life. But although it must necessarily remain the same always, it requires time to unfold itself and show the very diverse aspects which it may possess. For character consists of two factors: one, the will-to-live itself, blind impulse, so-called impetuosity; the other, the restraint which the will acquires when it comes to understand the world; and the world, again, is itself will. A man may begin by following the craving of desire, until he comes to see how hollow and unreal a thing is life, how deceitful are its pleasures, what horrible aspects it possesses; and this it is that makes people hermits, penitents, Magdalenes. Nevertheless it is to be observed that no such change from a life of great indulgence in pleasure to one of resignation is possible, except to the man who of his own accord renounces pleasure. A really bad life cannot be changed into a virtuous one. The most beautiful soul, before it comes to know life from its horrible side, may eagerly drink the sweets of life and remain innocent. But it cannot commit a bad action; it cannot cause others suffering to do a pleasure to itself, for in that case it would see clearly what it would be doing; and whatever be its youth and inexperience it perceives the sufferings of others as clearly as its own pleasures. That is why one bad action is a guarantee that numberless others will be committed as soon as circumstances give occasion for them. Somebody once remarked to me, with entire justice, that every man had something very good and humane in his disposition, and also something very bad and malignant; and that according as he was moved one or the other of them made its appearance. The sight of others’ suffering arouses, not only in different men, but in one and the same man, at one moment an inexhaustible sympathy, at another a certain satisfaction; and this satisfaction may increase until it becomes the cruellest delight in pain. I observe in myself that at one moment I regard all mankind with heartfelt pity, at another with the greatest indifference, on occasion with hatred, nay, with a positive enjoyment of their pain. (Schopenhauer, "On Character")

I'm aware of the quote. Very aware. And?

We all know no belief system is ever air tight in all respects — intrapersona

Do we?

so what is wrong with the athiests perspective that there is nothing after death? — intrapersona

Why is this the "atheist perspective?" The denial that God or the gods exist is not to deny that there is "nothing after death," whatever that means. You also misspelled "atheist," which additionally needs an apostrophe to show possession in your sentence.

Ah yes, the Abelsen essay. I've known about it for years. I don't mean to set myself up to defend the following claim at length here, but I think his analysis is extremely flawed.

The fact that they didn't seem to really advocate anything more is the main point here. — darthbarracuda

Schopenhauer's main ethical principles are: "Harm no one; rather, help everyone as much as you can." That's not far enough or amenable to your position?

they offered no real plan of action — darthbarracuda

No plan of action?! That is palpably false. They do offer plans of action, it's just that they're not the plans you like, apparently.

Not everyone has access to the aesthetic. Not everyone has the opportunity to contemplate the universe as a leisure. Not everyone even has the intelligence to think about their condition (non-human animals for example). — darthbarracuda

But those who do have access to aesthetic enjoyment, contemplation, and the gift of intelligence aren't bad for making use of these things.

The criterion imo would be to at least emphasize charitable and altruistic actions for the benefit of others, so long as you yourself don't drop below whatever you would see to be the line between "manageable" and "okay I'm suffering big time now". — darthbarracuda

And who's to say they did not do precisely this? You? Why should we believe you? Your only argument to this effect has involved the ludicrous complaint about the quality of their pillows, something I doubt you have much expertise in. Unless you have the bank account records of these men and have deduced from them the precise amount of money they could have given to the equivalent of whatever infallible charity you give to, then you will have confirmed the feeling of hot air emanating from your posts.

curiously seemed to be overly-concerned about his own well-being and status in mainland Germany and Europe as a whole. — darthbarracuda

This is so vague a charge as to be meaningless. I feel that any amount of specificity would bring about its death.

To attribute the angst and ennui Schopenhauer apparently felt as "suffering" is to bastardize suffering and insult those who actually are suffering. — darthbarracuda

But this is not an argument.

And if he thought this way then he probably shouldn't have taught or done anything related to philosophy as a whole. — darthbarracuda

You again assume he had a free choice in the matter!

It's just obvious that extreme starvation is worse than ennui. — darthbarracuda

No, it's not. There are ascetics who literally starve themselves to death, such as the Jains with their practice of sallekhana. They clearly prefer that to ennui and might even say that they suffer less thereby (since it's their ticket to leaving samsara, the world of suffering, behind). Less drastically, fasting in general has almost universally been seen as something positive. Lying behind your thoughts seems to be the assumption that suffering, especially physical suffering, is always bad. I disagree and have intimated my disagreement before. Suffering is sometimes the fleetest animal to perfection. Gratuitous suffering, that is, suffering perpetrated for its own sake, is clearly bad, but suffering directed toward certain ends is not necessarily bad. Now, maybe you want to say that the third world peasant is suffering gratuitously, and that may be true, but then we come back around to the issue of whether poor, bed-ridden Leopardi, for example, was really in a position to feed starving Africans or what have you, in addition to whether he is responsible for their plight. Consider also that some philosophers, like Galen Strawson, object even to our being responsible for anything at all! Thus, your position is very far from being as obvious as you claim.

They "recognize" that other people exist but don't seem to really act like it — darthbarracuda

Maybe because they can't help it, owing to their characters! Once again, I find myself repeating the same unanswered questions and objections. This will likely be my last post to you here.

Also, those who are extremely disadvantaged and are brought up to a higher level of living typically have a lot more appreciation for their new living conditions. — darthbarracuda

Dubitable, but I could grant it for the sake of argument, as it doesn't affect much.

This is why I said I'm focused more on non-human animals — darthbarracuda

I actually don't recall you saying this at all, anywhere in this thread at least.

Higher-intelligence does not necessitate higher suffering. — darthbarracuda

If we assume that Jesus is God, then the highest intelligence of all suffered most horrendously. That's not an assumption I would make at present, but it's an interesting thought that might bear noting. At any rate, I'm not sure Schopenhauer said what you attribute to him here. I only offered that claim as a possibility. I think Schopenhauer would say that the third worlder and the first worlder do not generally experience suffering any differently in terms of its amount and quality, owing to the fact that they share the same essence of will, though they may suffer differently in terms of its form.

Humans have a third: fix the problem — darthbarracuda

No we don't. You sound for all the world like an optimist here!

But this probably wouldn't be as effective as you might envision it to be. Nor do I think I have the guts to do something like this. — darthbarracuda

Hold the phone! Darth is appealing to his character to explain why he might not do something?!

But this doesn't change the fact that you are not an active pessimist. Again, if you don't find anything wrong with this, fine. If passive pessimism suits you and fulfills whatever ethical criteria you see as important, fine. — darthbarracuda

Victoire si douce!

but you did intend to ignore their plight — darthbarracuda

What does "ignore" mean? Not doing anything? If so, then sure, I didn't do anything to help them. But I've already told that I have no means or power to help them. But if by "ignore" we mean "not caring about or indifferent toward," then you're very wrong and I think you know that to accuse me of this is wrong and highly uncharitable to say the least. I'm not a sociopath thank you very much.

You intended to allow something to happen so long as you are knowledgeable of it and did nothing to interfere. — darthbarracuda

Uh, no. I don't think you know what the word intention means, for you have completely obliterated its meaning here. Intentions are important because my walking toward you with a knife means something completely different depending on if I intend to murder you or intend to chop up some onions for dinner.

They might be important in the legal sense, sure. But in the moral sense, what is so important about them? — darthbarracuda

Most laws are based on moral principles, so this is a false distinction.

Schopenhauer described himself as atheist — Wayfarer

No he didn't. In fact he objected to the term.

Buddhist ethics is completely different — Wayfarer

From what? It's not completely different from Schopenhauer's.

Nope, this is just you projecting. — darthbarracuda

Projecting what? You continually attribute callous disregard for those who suffer to Schopenhauer et al, which is the reason why you label them "passive" pessimists, a term not meant to praise but to rebuke. In doing so, you assume that they did not suffer or that if they did, their suffering does not matter as much as other people's. But this doesn't follow on consequentialist grounds, as I pointed out earlier. If they single-mindedly endeavored to rid themselves of their own suffering, and were in any way successful, then the result conforms to your goal of "making things comparatively better." Perhaps you will say that if they had given more to charity then things would have been comparatively better still, but this assumes you have some criterion for determining the adequate amount of charitable giving a person is obligated to meet, and that one is indeed obligated to meet it, which you have not yet divulged.

Furthermore, you implicitly and without warrant privilege certain forms of suffering as being worse or as deserving of more attention than others, namely, physical suffering over and against psychological. But "in much wisdom is much grief: and he that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow." Thus, it could be that Schopenhauer et al suffer more profoundly than the Ethiopian villager, in which case your priorities ought to be reversed. What is more, if you bring the Ethiopian out of his physical misery, then you have merely served as the enabler of his entering new forms thereof, that is, forms common to the materially satisfied and affluent, such as depression, substance abuse, risk of suicide, and other psychological disorders and conditions. In the absence of physical suffering, one creates fresh desires to strive after, whose unfulfillment causes yet more suffering. Paradoxically, then, the materially disadvantaged Ethiopian villager may actually be happier and more content than the materially prosperous American.

I am not here suggesting that one ought not to provide material assistance to those in need, but I am pointing out the naivety of your position. Your continued attempts to paint me as a spurned groupie are therefore ridiculous. I do not worship Schopenhauer and have serious disagreements with the man; I simply think your criticism of him as being a "passive," and hence "bad" or morally inadequate, pessimist fails to convince.

Thirdly, if you wish to end or alleviate suffering and agree that procreation is the principal cause thereof, then you ought to be focusing all of your efforts on encouraging people not to have children. By not doing this, and instead providing charitable assistance, you're acting in conflict with said goal. In other words, to use a word you accused Schopenhauer of earlier, you are in fact an accomplice to suffering by refusing to address the source. If the rightness or wrongness of an action is determined by the consequences of it, and the desired consequence in this case is an end to suffering, then it is wrong to give to charity, since it frees people to have children, which is the cause of suffering.

So maybe let's team up and do what Schopenhauer couldn't/didn't? — darthbarracuda

By doing what? I already said that if I were or became wealthy, I would give most of it away. I absolutely loathe money and desire only what will enable me to survive and pursue my interests, the principal of these being the truth. Once again, you must take into consideration one's character. Not everyone is so disposed that they can be charitable übermensch, as you apparently are or would like to be. The professions that pay the most, which would in turn allow one to give the most to charity, do not suit or interest me. They would, on the contrary, likely cause me to suffer more than if I had pursued other ends. Instead, becoming, say, a professor, teacher, monk, hermit, or priest are the paths that befit my character. Simply put, I am suited to the vita contemplativa, rather than the vita activa, and civilization needs both. If you are suited to the latter and wish to pursue it, that's great, but the expectation that everyone else is capable of doing so or ought to is hopelessly naive and inconsiderate.

as I already have said how an active pessimist could still see this as supererogatory and yet be a part of it — darthbarracuda

And I have never disagreed or meant to disagree with this. Of course one could and ought to do as much good as one can even if one is not obligated to do so.

Do you do anything wrong by not helping the child escape the water?

Or what if you saw a man kidnap a young child, and saw the license plate number on the vehicle? Surely you would think you have an obligation to call the police, no?

And what about those suffering by natural disasters? Who is to blame for this? Surely not the tsunami, but perhaps those who stood idly by and watched as people died. People who didn't have to die. — darthbarracuda

If one happens upon a drowning child whose death can be prevented by one's aid, then one naturally ought to help it. If one doesn't do so, then one is responsible for its death. The same logic holds for your other examples. But even though one does hold responsibility in these cases, there is no categorical obligation to save the child, for all obligations, imperatives, and duties are hypothetical. What you have done here is subtly switch from consequentialism to deontology, which Schopenhauer and I also reject.

I suspect many attempts to limit morality in this way are at least partly due to a dislike of how demanding a morality without it would be — darthbarracuda

An ethic isn't more true to the degree that it is demanding.

So it's easy to just say "not my problem" when the issue is thousands of miles away — darthbarracuda

No, if by "not my problem" you mean "not responsible," then it's simply correct. If you honestly think that I am responsible for people starving in Ethiopia, then your definition of responsibility is in error, since it would say of me that I caused or intended to cause their suffering, which I clearly did not. Nor, as I said, do I have the means or the power to end it, unlike the drowning child example.

yet for some reason found room to push in these idealistic, absolutist moral codes that drip with appeals to intention — darthbarracuda

I have no idea what you're talking about here.

I can assure you that I take none.

I've given you plenty of examples already. — darthbarracuda

I mean this with all seriousness: I have no idea to what you're referring. The only thing that I can recall is pillows. Is that it? What else have you impugned them for besides that, which is clearly an absurd example? Tell me, concretely and specifically, what they ought to have done that would make them into darthbarracuda approved™ "active" cool guy pessimists.

Whether there is something wrong with being a passive pessimist is not really the point of the OP, although I hope you and others will consider what it actually means to be a passive pessimist in the long run. — darthbarracuda

Oh please, your OP is positively dripping with contempt for this made up (read: straw man) form of pessimism.

I'm explaining how they certainly were not what I would call active pessimists. — darthbarracuda

In other words, they weren't what you wish them to be, and you're upset about that fact. Cry me a damn river. You can't change the past and you can't change other people, so stop acting like a petulant child. Those in glass houses ought not to cast stones. Focus on your own inadequacies before you smugly point out those of other people, people who were infinitely more influential and intelligent than you are, as you readily admit. If provoked, I have many extremely critical things to say about a great number of philosophers. But I don't make it a habit of going out of my way to create essay length threads condemning them.

I never said I wasn't a hypocrite, just that I'm a more productive hypocrite. — darthbarracuda

How confident you are. Productive in what way? Tell us all how great and wonderful darthbarracuda is in comparison with those icky "decadent" pessimists like Schopenhauer and Leopardi.

I'm sure it did a lot to help those who were on the receiving end. It didn't do "absolutely nothing" as you so boldly claim, otherwise it wouldn't actually be a good deed. — darthbarracuda

"In the grand scheme of things...."

but making things comparatively better. — darthbarracuda

And you will notice that I've been talking about suffering as a general category ("In the grand scheme of things").The total amount of suffering is not lessened one single iota due to Schopenhauer giving to charity. Not one. Suffering and misery in fact increased exponentially after his death, as the human population exploded and we embarked on one of the most barbaric and violent centuries yet seen in the history of this sad, pathetic vale of tears.

except there actually is. — darthbarracuda

Like what, buckwheat. I'm still asking for this.

There's nothing wrong with seeking the truth, per se, so long as you recognize that some truths are sought because you want to know, not because of some "higher purpose" that truth-seeking embodies. — darthbarracuda

I would describe it as an end in itself.

Meanwhile in Ethiopia, over 14 million people don't really care about metaphysics. Because they haven't eaten in ten days. If you don't find anything wrong with this, fine. Just don't pretend Schopenhauer and co. did anything substantial over their lifetimes to help people like this. They were passive, focused more on abstract metaphysics than the suffering they were famous for characterizing. — darthbarracuda

No, they did nothing wrong ignoring starving Ethiopians. The concept of right, as Schopenhauer contends, and with whom I agree, is negative. I have the right not to be harmed, but I have absolutely no right to receive charity, whether it be in the form of food or whatever. Consequently, I do no wrong in withholding charity from starving Ethiopians, for I am not the cause of, and so am not responsible for, their plight. Now, lest you misconstrue what I am saying, charitable giving is good, undoubtedly, but not giving to charity is not bad.

They may think about such things, but they do not complain of them. It's the utopians and optimists who continually whine and moan about how things are not as they ought to be. And then their projects for achieving what they take to be the ideal state of affairs go up in flames and cause more misery than would otherwise likely occur. A curmudgeonly philosopher in Frankfurt or a sickly, bed-ridden poet in Italy are not doing very much wrong, it seems to me, so that to focus on their faults is to engage in a most tiresome and irksome pettiness.

far from being just about their general hypocrisy, I'm trying to show how they didn't go far enough. They weren't radical enough to see their already-radical philosophical views actualize. — darthbarracuda

You must like being coy, because you have continually refused to give me concrete examples of what they did wrong, what they ought to have done, and why.

as I have argued that welfare consequentialism is the inevitable next-step after pessimism is accepted. Problem-solving instead of simply problem-acknowledging. — darthbarracuda

1) You haven't argued that here. 2) These figures, or at least Schopenhauer, would say that the problem CANNOT be solved, outside of abstaining from procreation. This is part of what makes them pessimists.

I sleep on a pillow I got from Target. — darthbarracuda

Yes, you're a hypocrite. Think of all the drowning children you could have saved if you slept on a rock and used the money for that Target pillow on them.

Well presumably because I think I have offered reasons why I am to be believed. — darthbarracuda

Which you haven't done here.

but at least he did donate the charity at the end of his life. — darthbarracuda

A good deed, but in the grand scheme of things it did absolutely nothing, as is the case of all forms of charity. Human misery is as rife as it ever was, if not more so. Throwing money at the problem will not fix it, for the condition is terminal and permanent. It will merely act as a fleeting and minutely effective band-aid. I am not saying not to give to charity or that I wouldn't if I had the means, I am only pointing out the sheer idiocy and folly in suggesting that it will make any substantial difference.

Thought it was good enough to just talk about the suffering of the world. — darthbarracuda

But in some sense it was, since you and I are now talking about it in large part due to his eloquent observations and arguments. That you're not grateful to be so informed by such a man doesn't negate his value.

Part of my argument, then, is that Schopenhauer (and co.) felt Truth was still "important" for some reason in a world as harsh and violent as the one their perceived. Truth or bust. — darthbarracuda

And I believe this too. What's wrong with seeking the truth? Presumably the harshness and violence of the world is true and requires pointing out and defending as such.

philosophy is a sort of reassuring comfort of perfect rational structure that isolates someone from the rest of the dirty, wild world. — darthbarracuda

So surely we should be advocating for more of if it's a means of obtaining comfort. Or do you not wish comfort on your fellow men?

I have argued that understanding the world this way should lead one to see absolute Truth as something secondary in importance. — darthbarracuda

Well you haven't convinced me of this I'm afraid. I shall seek the truth above all else.

There is no dealing with it at a social level, I agree with that. No perfect society. But the pessimist takes a further step than saying just this. He complains about it - as if such a society should be possible but isn't. — Agustino

No, the pessimist merely acknowledges this, because he also knows that complaining about what cannot be changed is a foolish waste of time.

The pessimist's response is that there is no "dealing with it," in the sense of solving it. Stop immanentizing the eschaton. There will not be, and more importantly, cannot be a utopia on this planet.

Epictetus — Agustino

I don't see the relevance of that quote.

Seeing as most professors often don't even reply to the emails of their own students, you can be assured that your attempts to contact them in such a manner will be ignored.

This is where you are incorrect. There are lots of effective altruism groups and other similar organizations that operate on donations from people like you and me. — darthbarracuda

Wait a minute, if your solution to the world's suffering is charity, then Schopenhauer's giving his money to charity upon his death is more effective than anything either of us could or likely will do. I have substantial student loan debt, a microscopic bank account, very few possessions to my name, and no desire to be extremely wealthy, so I'm not the sort of person for whom these organizations operate.

But think of the ridiculousness of your suggestion. The existence of charities at all begs the question of what underlying features of society, human nature, and the world are broken and corrupt enough that they necessitate their existence. If humans were capable of alleviating suffering through charity, then they would be capable of solving the problems that necessitate charity. But they are not and so you are chasing a fool's dream.

I'm a welfare consequentialist, yes. — darthbarracuda

But this means your criticism has been meaningless from the start, since you have been assuming an ethic contrary to those about whom you criticize. In order for your criticism to stick, you would first have to show how their ethical systems are false.

I sleep on a pillow imported from the far east, with downy feathers and a silk cover. Some say the prince of Persia once rested his head upon its soft embrace. — darthbarracuda

So you're a hypocrite.

I was using it to convey a point that you're missing here. — darthbarracuda

Which was?

since I already said you can pursue these things, so long as you're not doing it exclusively — darthbarracuda

And why should anyone listen to what you think other people should do? More importantly, what makes you think they will?

I'm saying there were things that these pessimists could have done that would not have affected their lives in any unreasonable manner, and they did not do so. — darthbarracuda

Like what? Selling their pillows for crappier ones? Come on, man.

What about scholars of thinkers like Nietzsche or Freud? Don't they have to read Schopenhauer, for example? — darthbarracuda

Some of them do, but if you look for scholars who do work on Nietzsche, then more often than not, they ignore Schopenhauer. The simple fact is that, in academic philosophy at present, Schopenhauer is estranged from both the analytic and continental camps. He doesn't belong to, nor founded, any "school," and for this reason is ignored. The analytic camp follows a line of influence from Hume to Kant to Frege, Russell, Wittgenstein, and the logical positivists. The continental camp follows a line from Kant to Fichte, Schelling, and Hegel, then to Marx, Nietzsche, and Freud, and finally to the postmodernists of the last century.

What difference does it make if the person is next door or down the street? What about a few miles away? — darthbarracuda

The difference is that I may not be able to do anything to help the person miles away. This ought to be obvious. If one sees a child drowning, then one if obliged to save it, as the figures you mention would no doubt try to do. But children likely drown by the thousands each year, all over the planet. One cannot hope to save all of them. The magnitude of suffering is so great that there is extremely little one can concretely do to alleviate it in any meaningful sense. And why should the alleviation of one's own suffering somehow count for less than the alleviation of someone else's? Suffering is suffering, so if you are some kind of consequentialist, as I am wont to assume about you based on this discussion, then it shouldn't matter the person from whom suffering is taken away.

as he could have used that money for better use — darthbarracuda

So you're a utilitarian. Great, but he wasn't. Nor am I.

The point is that Schopenhauer and co. all seemed to focus on their own comfort more than anyone else's. — darthbarracuda

Even if this were true, again, so what? That shouldn't matter for a utilitarian. Also, what pillow do you sleep on?

So not only was Schopenhauer a determinist, you're saying he was a fatalist as well? — darthbarracuda

You dodged my question here.

One wonders how much they actually accomplished to reduce suffering in comparison to all those comparatively-optimistic social workers who didn't know two things about metaphysics but were more effective in reducing suffering as a whole than any one of these great thinkers. — darthbarracuda

Again, you're judging them on utilitarian grounds, which they would reject.

I'll quote Adorno: "To write poetry after Auschwitz is barbaric." — darthbarracuda

Adorno is an idiot. To not write poetry after Auschwitz is barbaric. The existence of poetry is a sign and consequence of civilizational and cultural health. Barbarism is the antithesis of civilization and so the antithesis of the arts and poetry. Auschwitz was therefore an enemy of poetry, such that a legitimate repudiation of the former would be to write the latter.

Pursuing things like philosophy or art that have no real contribution to the rest of the world as a whole, exclusively, means to prioritize oneself over another. — darthbarracuda

Poppycock. If you really believed this, you would cease posting on a forum like this. Or perhaps you will admit to your own hypocrisy, in which case your criticisms of Schopenhauer et al lose all their force.

There is nothing wrong with my statement that these men could have done more. — darthbarracuda

Yes, you're a utilitarian.

Because I find this to be important — darthbarracuda

Why?

if I remember correctly, you are at university, no? — darthbarracuda

Unfortunately, I am.

Do you have any thoughts on why pessimistic thinkers typically don't get taught as much as other thinkers? — darthbarracuda

Because most college professors are optimistic, left leaning progressives. I will say that there is a certain kind of pessimism which some of them exude, owing to the influence of certain postmodernist hacks, which I absolutely abhor. It's not "classical pessimism," as you put it, but a pessimism about the merits and achievements of science, Western civilization, truth, reason, the enlightenment, democracy, and so on.

I'm not "desperate" to prove these people as devils. — darthbarracuda

So what are you trying to prove, hmm? That you're "disappointed that they didn't even seem to try given what they obviously understood about life?" That's it? That's a waste of breath to point out. If in your estimation they didn't "try" hard enough, then so what? They might agree with you on that point! We all fall short, every last one of us. To be disappointed in what one cannot change is foolish.

Not having children isn't too impressive. — darthbarracuda

The claim isn't about its impressiveness.

in the same way standing by while a child drowns in water is criminal neglect — darthbarracuda

I don't recall any incidents in his life that are in any way comparable to this.

Once you know what life entails, sitting on your plush pillows is neglect. — darthbarracuda

The pillow one sleeps on makes not one iota of difference, positive or negative, to the sufferings going on in the world. If a rock were his pillow, is he suddenly absolved? If he went down to the Main river, found a nice stone, and replaced his "plush" pillow with it, is the world suddenly a better place? What pillow do you sleep on? Judge not lest ye be judged.

In comparison to what he could have done. — darthbarracuda

Which would have been what? The kind of free will you seem to be attributing to Schopenhauer he would reject: "Let us imagine a man who, while standing on the street, would say to himself: It is six o'clock in the evening, the working day is over. Now I can go for a walk, or I can go to the club; I can also climb up the tower to see the sunset; I can go to the theater; I can visit this friend or that one; indeed, I also can run out of the gate, into the wide world, and never return. All of this is strictly up to me, in this I have complete freedom. But still I shall do none of these things now, but with just as free a will I shall go home to my wife."

True. — darthbarracuda

The figures you mentioned were not "indifferent" to suffering. One would be hard pressed to find a more false claim one could make about them.

Funny how you seem to focus only on Schopenhauer when I mentioned other pessimists, like Leopardi, who intentionally isolated themselves from everyone else. — darthbarracuda

It's not funny, since the vast majority of your post was about Schopenhauer.

And so what does it "fully entail"? Please enlighten me. — darthbarracuda

I don't have any interest in trying to define pessimism here. I'm content simply to point out that one of the things it entails is that humans do not behave as they ought or would like.

But I'm disappointed that they didn't even seem to try given what they obviously understood about life. — darthbarracuda

So why dwell on what cannot be changed? Focus on living morally in your own life, which is the only one you have any control over.

Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, Cioran — darthbarracuda

Labeling these figures generically as "pessimists" is somewhat misleading.

which there is an absent adequate prescription for its residents. In particular, an ethical prescription. — darthbarracuda

The validity of this statement hangs on the word "adequate," for Schopenhauer and Nietzsche do propose an ethic. Cioran may be different, but that's because his preference for obscurantism elides any attempt to extract coherent philosophical positions from his writings.

He went out partying and auctioning and traveling. Not exactly the life of an ascetic. — darthbarracuda

Ah, this canard again. I suppose you were about due for an ad hominem attack on poor ol' Arthur!

But wait, I see a shaft of light piercing through the clouds:

But we have to make sure we separate the actions of the man with the theoretical prescriptions he provided. — darthbarracuda

Good, let's see if you succeed.

This quotation shows his deep aversion towards the world in general — darthbarracuda

Really? I would say it shows his deep aversion to dying of cholera, a quite natural aversion for a person to have, surely.

a sense of entitlement and superiority. — darthbarracuda

And entirely justified.

he simultaneously seemed to care very little for it — darthbarracuda

You're confusing "caring" with "acting." Schopenhauer undoubtedly cared about suffering a great deal. But did he perform heroic acts of altruism sufficient to meet the heavenly standards of a certain darthbarracuda? Perhaps not.

He contemplated getting a wife later in his years. After he died, he left all his money to charity - a noble gesture, yet neither did Schopenhauer have any close friends or family in which this would go to. — darthbarracuda

So, he's damned if he tries to marry and damned for not having a family to give charity to. He cannot win on your terms.

one in which he no doubt thought himself as residing in the upper echelons — darthbarracuda

And justifiably so. "What is modesty but hypocritical humility?"

Schopenhauer was able to enjoy himself in a surrounding world of suffering. — darthbarracuda

I would hesitate to say that Schopenhauer "enjoyed" living. What do you know of the man's inner life? You're just armchair psychologizing here, creating an image of Schopenhauer suitable to reject, for reasons you have yet to make fully clear.

Considering Schopenhauer saw married couples as the ultimate conspirators to the continuation of human suffering, I believe I am justified in criticizing Schopenhauer himself as an inactive bystander (passive accomplice) to a world he otherwise saw as horrible. — darthbarracuda

But he didn't marry and never desired to have children, so he is not an "accomplice" to human suffering at all, given that, as you admit, its origin is found in procreation.

Schopenhauers’ ethics would seem to largely consist in “not my fucking problem”. — darthbarracuda

No, his ethic consists in treating other living beings with compassion. You're still desperately trying to paint him as "uncaring," but that impression simply does not stand up to the facts. Another aspect of his philosophy you have neglected to consider, but which is relevant to this discussion, is his determinism. Even if I granted to you that he were an uncaring individual, he could no more change this aspect of his character than the saint could cease to be holy. As Voltaire says, which Schopenhauer quotes somewhere, "we shall leave this world as foolish and as wicked as we found it on our arrival." The truth of what Schopenhauer describes of the world is not made false by the life he lead, decadent or not.

romanticization of something that really is not romantic at all, but dirty, painful, narrowing, and bad. — darthbarracuda

There may be some romanticization going on, but these men also realize that "suffering is the fleetest animal that bears you to perfection."

True altruists. — darthbarracuda

Only if you buy what they're selling! In any event, the "help" consists in being reborn as a monk or a lama ad infinitum, which, given the drift of your comments addressed above, you would likely be dissatisfied with as not being "altruistic" enough.

Excessive individuality and self-centeredness, manifesting as isolation and a sense of entitlement/superiority — darthbarracuda

Excessive in comparison to what?

Acknowledgement of others’ suffering, but a general indifference to it — darthbarracuda

False.

Schopenhauer’s plush pillows and poodle — darthbarracuda

Yes, for we all know that whoever advocates asceticism but does not sleep on a cement block next to a charnel ground in the howling wind is the vilest of hypocrites. And, obviously, to hell with animal companionship.

Thus I believe that the “comfortable pessimist” betrays their own descriptive foundations by failing to follow-through and pursue their pessimism to a prescriptive end. — darthbarracuda

In other words, as per usual, you're disappointed that Schopenhauer et al haven't lived up to their own ideals to the degree that you would like. But this is of no surprise to the pessimist, if we must use that term. Would that the world were a nice and pleasant place! Would that all men behaved like saints and lived up to the highest ethical ideals! But they do not, and it is precisely this realization that makes one a pessimist, generally speaking. Your criticism is therefore entirely impotent because it fails to understand all of what pessimism logically entails.

I have a vague sense of what these terms might refer to, but why don't you tell me what they are positions on?

Mae govannen, Maw. Good to see you here.

pleasure, in relation to our metaphysical fatalism, is misleading, whereas pain is enlightening — darthbarracuda

Well said, and I agree.

You might flag that as nsfw.

Well, the topic of the thread is about sex — Question

But his reply wasn't.... Unless he comes around to correct us.

I didn't read his reply as being about sex. His issue, which I must profess to have some sympathy with, has to do with the cogency and possibility of Buddhism's soteriology.

You may be too quick to dismiss these people. — anonymous66

Dismissing the herd can never be done too quickly. Although I generally try to ignore it and let it stampede in ignorance.