But this just isn't true. That would impute extraordinary powers of control over me. — The Great Whatever

What I'm saying is that psychological pain (unless it is caused by a disorder or disease) is perpetuated by our choices and perspective. Regardless of your views on free will, you have to live under the illusion that you have control (the trash will not take itself out, for example). Psychological pain is a very real phenomenon, but ultimately it derives from the person, not the environment. This makes it different than physical pain caused by nociceptors, since we really don't have much control over that kind of pain, and which is caused by an external influence.

Would a wolf or a tiger have compassion for me, even a wild hog would kill a person to eat without a worry. Does having a greater ability to reason automatically make it an obligation to develop compassion and empathy? — Sir2u

Having a greater sense of reason means that we humans can look at the ecosystem and realize how much of a pyramid scheme it is, realize how much an organism suffers simply because it wasn't able to fight back. To say that we should just follow nature because that's what nature is, is the naturalistic fallacy.

If for example you consider boredom, loneliness, hopelessness, embarrassment, and so on pains, then you would have to rewire our bodily structure so fundamentally that our existential structures would be completely revamped, to the extent that we might not be able to even recognize them or from our present perspective even imagine them. — The Great Whatever

Or, you could look at these pains like I do, and realize that they are self-caused. Boredom can be relieved and can be a motivator for action. Loneliness and embarrassment are horrible feelings but they ultimately can be relieved as well by action from the person. Striving, tanha, can be mitigated by getting rid of three different kinds of desires. It's not as if these pains spontaneously come into being and cannot be solved.

Additionally, I do not think these kinds of pains are anywhere near as bad as, say, being stabbed in the heart. They may cause a person a bit of angst, anxiety, and some depression, but don't usually give a person overwhelmingly terrible suffering. And the times that it does give a person overwhelmingly terrible suffering (such as extreme anxiety, something I have experience with), there is medication and therapy that helps tremendously.

Is it even possible for a feeling creature not to suffer? — The Great Whatever

We could make an artificial intelligence that is wired so that it never thinks about the past or the future (thus never feeling existential angst), and program it with notifications instead of crude nociceptors.

For beings that exist right now, such as you and me, well, I'm not sure. Unless an experience machine is a valid option, then some kind of existential, psychological suffering (like you said, boredom or striving) is going to arise. It is inevitable, but we can learn to deal with it in various ways that allow us to live our lives in a sufficiently pleasant way.

I am not certain, of course, but I am pretty damn sure. — unenlightened

I can agree with this. From Charles Sander Pierce, father of pragmatism:

We cannot begin with complete doubt. We must begin with all the prejudices which we actually have when we enter upon the study of philosophy. These prejudices are not to be dispelled by a maxim, for they are things which it does not occur to us can be questioned. Hence this initial skepticism will be a mere self-deception, and not real doubt; and no one who follows the Cartesian method will ever be satisfied until he has formally recovered all those beliefs which in form he has given up. It is, therefore, as useless a preliminary as going to the north pole would be in order to get to Constantinople by coming down regularly upon a meridian. A person may, it is true, in the course of his studies, find reason to doubt what he began by believing; but in that case he doubts because he has a positive reason for it, and not on account of the Cartesian maxim. Let us not pretend to doubt in philosophy what we do not doubt in our hearts.

So, pretty much, yes we can doubt all we want, but there's no good reason to apply this doubt. There's always the chance everything we think we know is simply make believe, but there's no actual good reasons to believe that everything we know is wrong simply because there's no cosmic answer key.

Right.

Presumably, however, we could invent technology that could get rid of the aspect of pain that we find uncomfortable and replace it with simply a notification. Evolution did not lead to us having to ability to consciously control our pain receptors, but with the help of technology we might be able to.

twg, just to remind you in case you forgot, I'm waiting for your reply regarding this:

It could be mitigated, but new pains would arise. Those who medically cannot feel pain do not by that token have 'good' lives in any sense.
— The Great Whatever

How so? — darthbarracuda

I came looking for recipes to steal and I find arguments about killing pigs. — Sir2u

Welcome to PF. :D

If you are religious then the bible says that the animals are for your use, eat em up. If you are not religious then there is no sin to commit, eat em up. — Sir2u

If you aren't religious you can still have an ethical system based upon empathy and compassion, which would result in you becoming a vegetarian/vegan/pescetarian out of respect for the animals.

I got lost about two-thirds of the way down the previous page in the sparring ring between you and TGW. Something about tornadoes and a weird desire to evangelize disillusionment with the world.

It's too bad that 180 Proof doesn't hang around here often, I think he would agree with my statement that suffering is merely one of many incarnations that arises from the various forces of nature, namely, entropy.

Dreariness, isolation, suffering and other unpleasantness are part of the world (among other aspects some of which are pretty neat), not based on its metaphysical foundations. Talk of a striving will or any other metaphysical ground are just stories and abstractions. It wouldn't be any different if it was turtles all the way down. — shmik

Couldn't have said it better myself, shmik. Suffering is a part of the world, not the structure of the world.

For mass-produced bacon, a single individual's desire for bacon has no effect on whether or not the pig is slaughtered.

Interesting, I haven't heard of this before.

Wittgenstein, then.

It could be mitigated, but new pains would arise. Those who medically cannot feel pain do not by that token have 'good' lives in any sense. — The Great Whatever

How so?

I was going to say something myself, actually. ;)

They would have been slaughtered regardless, and the meat would have been wasted. I agree that ideally we shouldn't kill sentient animals, but they have already been killed. Unfortunately abstaining from being a consumer is not going to bring these pigs back to life, although you could argue that it perpetuates the killing machine.

Which, incidentally, also means that the previous statement is also unverifiable. We cannot trust our senses, nor can we trust our rationality. I see no reason why our rationality alone would allow us to concoct grand metaphysical theories. It is very anthropocentric and narrow minded, but then again this argument is also an appeal to rationality, so it cannot be entirely trusted, which also cannot be trusted.

I agree with you that philosophy is something that is inevitable. However since there is no way to actually verify that our thoughts are correct, as in, they are an accurate representation of reality, then ultimately the entire enterprise of thought is nihilistic.

So meta.

Sure..but I won't be condescending about it: — schopenhauer1

Let's try to keep the martyrdom at a minimum.

Found an interesting interview of Peter Unger, who thinks philosophy is a bunch of empty ideas:

http://www.3quarksdaily.com/3quarksdaily/2014/06/philosophy-is-a-bunch-of-empty-ideas-interview-with-peter-unger.html

Historical lack of evidence for as great a number of geniuses amongst women as amongst men. Take the number of great scientists who were men, great philosophers, etc. It doesn't compare. Which woman is as great a scientist as an Einstein, Darwin, or Newton etc.? Which is as great a philosopher as a Plato, Socrates, Kant, Schopenhauer, Spinoza, Wittgenstein, etc.? Probably none. — Agustino

But why? This is the question.

Kant did not just pop out of the womb and write his Critique. He had access to education, something females did not at the time. Darwin didn't just "write" the Origin. He had access to education, money, ships for exploration of the Galapagos, etc. What were the females given? Very little in comparison. Can you imagine the contributions that would have come from female intellectuals had they been given access to education and resources?

For the role of testosterone? Because the remaining bit is a direct conclusion from knowing the role testosterone plays. — Agustino

I want a scientific source that says testosterone has a role in perseverance.

If the world were a paradise of luxury and ease, a land flowing with milk and honey, where every Jack obtained his Jill at once and without any difficulty, men would either die of boredom or hang themselves; or there would be wars, massacres, and murders; so that in the end mankind would inflict more suffering on itself than it has now to accept at the hands of Nature. — Schopenhauer

I don't see the connection. In fact, all I'm seeing here is a generalization; i.e. how Schopenhauer himself feels he would react to such a situation being applied to everyone across the world. Schopenhauer doesn't explain why such a utopia would lead to chaos and suicide, he just asserts it. It's sophistry.

But even solving their manifestations through technology or whatever still leaves you with the basic structural problem which is more something like...I don't know, sensitivity which is required for life plus entropy? Or if your Buddhist inclinations prefer, dukkha. — The Great Whatever

Dukkha is pretty much synonymous with dissatisfaction.

What is this metaphysical structure you are referring to? If we get rid of the manifestations of it, then the structure is no longer apparent.

.I don't know, sensitivity which is required for life plus entropy? — The Great Whatever

I don't know what you're saying here.

Though even that's not enough, because it often takes the form of the 'real deal' pain, not stupid self-help 'oh I'm unsatisfied with my life' bullshit. — The Great Whatever

By "real deal" I assume you are referring to pain caused by nociceptors. Presumably this could be solved by technology.

I would like some examples of these harder problems. Are you referring to things like cancer and tornadoes?

What justification do you have for this when it comes specifically to rational capabilities? (I've already agreed there are quite a few things women are generally better at than men) — Agustino

Google "female scientists". Hypatia, Lovelace, Carson, Curie, etc. Plus I happen to personally know five successful female scientists and engineers.

What justification do you have for the position that women do not have as well developed rational capabilities?

Keep in mind that testosterone is essential to developing traits of perseverence (along with aggression) as well, so biologically, women aren't as perseverent as men simply because they lack quantities of this hormone that men have. — Agustino

Source?

No, this doesn't follow. He's not criticizing at all. You read it as criticism, he's just stating how things are, without judging that this is good or bad. You read what he says, and immediately judge that he's saying something bad about women, which he is not. — Agustino

So what is he saying?

Very peaceful song.

No, historical evidence written by the facts. The scientific/philosophical developments have, historically, been driven mostly by men. This is undisputable. It's not only historical accounts which justify this, but also the utter lack of evidence of a similar number of scientific inventions/discoveries or philosophical systems developed by women. — Agustino

You and I do not disagree that male humans have been the dominant force in "progress" and development. What we disagree on is why this is. I believe females have the potential to be just as good as males at many things, and even surpass in some areas that are even dominated by males today. But they have been systematically oppressed in the past simply because they did not have the physical strength and brutish testosterone that males do. The male/female role has become an unfortunate crevice in the social fabric, one that will be difficult to mend, and so many females are content (or feel obligated) to "stay in the kitchen" while the males do all the development.

and neither did Schopenhauer as a matter of fact... — Agustino

What he was saying is that because this is the way he thought women were, he felt women could not do anything outside of that. He was criticizing females without understanding why they are that way to begin with.

Historical evidence strongly disagrees with you. — Agustino

Historical evidence that is written by man simply because man has bigger, stronger muscles. You may also recall that practically every single war was waged by a man who wanted to show the world how big his penis was.

You're bordering the naturalistic fallacy here. Just because women are suitable for giving birth and raising children doesn't mean that's all they can or ought to do.

Incidentally, Einstein chased quite a few ladies - and frequently, they allowed him to catch them. — Pneumenon

My mistake.

I would consider myself one of the newer guys still in the PF network, as I've only been here for a little over a year now.

I may be alone in this, but I feel this new PF is a lot more relaxed and fun than the old PF was. Feels like I'm not getting judged as much for being a newb, and we're all just having civilized discussions without spamming the eye-rolling emoji.

You are not alone with this sentiment. Although I personally do agree with many of the things Schopenhauer wrote (alongside other "machismo" pessimists), I also get turned off a bit by just how much of a dick he was, whether it be his general apathy towards humankind or his pontificating rants about himself. Here are some good examples:

Great men are like eagles, and build their nest on some lofty solitude.

Which leads me to believe he felt people who derived pleasure from socializing with other people were stupid and petty.

Rascals are always sociable, more's the pity! and the chief sign that a man has any nobility in his character is the little pleasure he takes in others' company.

Even more so. It's just masturbatory self-inflation. For a man who thought the ego was an incarnation of the Will and therefore a source of suffering, he sure does have a knack for blowing it up.

To live alone is the fate of all great souls.

Repeat ad nauseam.

The problem I see with the picture of the cynical, smartass intellectual caricature is that it is too easy for any person to become a cynical smartass and think this is a direct correlation to their intellectual prowess.

Richard Feynman (although mocked in the philosophical community for his attacks on philosophy) was indisputably one of the most influential theoretical physicists of our time. He was also a major party-goer and womanizer.

Albert Einstein, on the other hand, was much more reclusive and quiet; your stereotypical "genius".

I think Schopenhauer had a bad case of of a bad attitude and was pissy that his colleagues were getting dates and lectures while he wasn't. So he became caustic and bitter and transformed it into a kind of miserable pride.

That's the whole pessimistic position on progress. It's constantly fighting the force of entropy, and will eventually lose. Eroding away everything.

Progress is ultimately doomed though, whether it be from our own self destruction or the eventual heat death of the universe. It is inevitable.

You can access all of your threads by Comments.

You can access your threads via your Discussions tab on your Personal About page.

Yeah, I don't see how a person who isn't discontented with their current situation would be willing to give up their liberties and current values. To endorse views that extreme shows how desperate many people are.

I also haven't seen True Detective, for it too seems to be the same sort of popularizing of Schopenhauer that repudiates him in the end; in other words, shallow, gimmicky tripe that merely uses Schopenhauerian themes to invoke a gritty and rebellious atmosphere. I have no patience or time for fairy tale endings unless they are expected from the start. — Thorongil

I actually had a different take on the show. Although it ends in a quasi-optimistic way with no real explanation why, I like to think that the director did this on purpose. The director said that he was influenced by major pessimistic works, such as Schopenhauer, Zapffe and Ligotti, and it seemed to me like it was a kind of an ironic twist at the end, a nod to Ligotti, who in one of his books I believe criticizes the redemption cliche. If you hadn't read Ligotti, it came across as just the typical ending. If you had read Ligotti, it was the ultimate irony.

In my personal opinion, True Detective is a very good show that does an extremely good job, in comparison to other shows, in voicing the philosophy behind it. It's most definitely advertised as the "hip" and "gritty" show, but it nevertheless delivers on its message.

Glad you mentioned Paxton, he brings a good description of what Fascism entails. Fascism is such a reactionary political position, it exalts anti-intellectualism, emotionalism, survival of the fittest, war, tribal mentality, etc and disparages the liberal, modern values such as liberty, equality, justice, peace, and intellectualism. I am interested in understanding why a person would support such values, though.

The latter are unintended but welcome side effects of our position. — Thorongil

I'm picking up on the sarcasm here, but this is actually very important to the discussion, I think. The average depressive attitude of the pessimist does not logically follow from the conclusions of pessimism.

In all seriousness, the day pessimists are considered anything but unwanted cranks interrupting The Glorious Progress of the Human Race™ is the day I buy a hat in order to eat it. — Thorongil

Can't argue with this. Pessimism will never garner strength as a major philosophy because most people are unfortunately brainwashed into the progress mentality. It runs against all they have been taught.