Good insight regarding Islamo-Fascism and the theocratic fascist state.


The values of anti-intellectualism, brutish war mongering and group-mentality of Fascism, although to most of us would seem knee-jerkingly bad, are seen as a good thing by a Fascist. It runs completely contrary to our contemporary values (liberty, equality, freedom, intellectualism, peace, etc), which are seen as bad things to a Fascist. I think that's why I find it such an interesting philosophy: not that I agree with it, but how something so absurd in my worldview could actually garner enough strength to become an international threat.

Oh, gotcha. I was gonna say, damn, I got popular.

I get that you have probably changed your position, — schopenhauer1

I have moderated my position. Yes, I remember that post I made a year ago...when I was very angsty and depressed. I am getting better now. And I can assure you I am not trolling.

Furthermore, I don't quite see the importance of understanding my position. Isn't it enough to read what I have posted in this thread without trying to piece together what my entire philosophy is? That's going beyond the scope of the thread. I have supplemented you with my thoughts on the topic (of pessimism vs stoicism), and whether or not this contradicts something I said over a year ago shouldn't really have any basis in the discussion.

I don't know if it is expectations and reality. Rather, it is just a feeling, the pain can range from as physical as a cut, or the less tangible but still real emotional pain. — schopenhauer1

"Just a feeling"? I do not understand. Feelings do not arise spontaneously and for no reason. Pain arises to notify the subject that they are in a potentially dangerous and harmful situation. And the emotional pain: what causes this? What perpetuates this feeling? Buddhism answers this by the doctrine of dependent origin: every dharma arises due to another dharma.

Someone who has his head in the sand will feel the disappointments more when the fissures break. — schopenhauer1

Sure, but they also live their life prior to their disappointment with hyperbolic glee. I don't endorse the path of ignorant optimism, but neither do I endorse the path of extreme precautionary pessimism. Both kill the human spirit. There must be a balance for the human to thrive. I agree with you that we shouldn't stick our heads in the sand, but neither should we dread the future. Prepare for the worst, expect the mediocre, but hope for the best.

Wrong, he is saying they are enjoying it. It is literary sophistry. My mind imagines his ideas attributed to a caricature of someone who did a lot of cocaine and thinking they are the king of the world. — schopenhauer1

Perhaps not enjoying as one would enjoy an ice cream sandwich, but rather relishing it because it gives them power. Nietzsche thought people were motivated by power. You offer a child the opportunity to be "virtuous," and the child will scratch their head, he said. But you offer them the chance to be stronger, fitter, sexier, and better than their friends and peers, and the child will immediately perk up. Nietzsche was appealing to what he felt was our intrinsic drive for power. I don't entirely agree with him; I think ultimately the race for power is a rat race that only perpetuates our suffering, but I do find his texts to be motivating for me to better myself as a person.

It cannot be defeated. Accepting it is no good either, because no one actually accepts it except in platitudes to make others feel better about it in places like philosophy forums. The less you try to deny it, the less you will feel the unrealistic expectation that you will mitigate it. Accepting it doesn't mean you won't feel it as much, contrary to what some Stoic-minded people will tell you they supposedly do. Rather, accept the fact that it happens, it might be part of being alive and human, and it is ok not to like. The compassion comes in the commiseration. "That sucks, man" is better than "I looketh in the direction of naught..and I feeleth no pain" (with face emotionless and head cocked slightly upwards towards the sky like some mimic of a statue of a Greek philosopher- arrogant and smug). — schopenhauer1

You are approaching this in the way a quarterback approaches the opponent: head on. Which doesn't really do much other than throw you right at it and leave you bruised and broken.

How you do know how other people experience? I see no argument of yours against Stoicism except for "contrary to what they supposedly do."

The compassion comes in the commiseration. "That sucks, man" is better than "I looketh in the direction of naught..and I feeleth no pain" (with face emotionless and head cocked slightly upwards towards the sky like some mimic of a statue of a Greek philosopher- arrogant and smug). — schopenhauer1

This is a most excellent stereotypical straw man of the Stoic.

But of course you wouldn't like to be the noble Stoic, rather, the angsty, Rust Cohle-esque pessimist, with a dark, sullen face cast away from the sunlight by the sheer malevolence it has upon the being. No, better to have never been, and better to bitch and sulk about it than to take steps to overcome the problem. Being a Stoic is bland, being a pessimist is cool, hip, attention-grabbing and contrarian. Or am I just straw-manning your position?

But I read your comment before it was deleted urging me to read your previous replies to other people. So I did.

We are always going to be annoyed or disappointed at something. — schopenhauer1

Eh. How big of a deal are you making this to be? Why are you annoyed? Why are you disappointed? Because your expectations have come into conflict with reality.

Of course it is impossible to get rid of all of our expectations. But knowing the source of your angst actually takes a considerable amount of the sting away from it. Being able to laugh it off is cool.

Fighting life head-on with the attitude that focuses on the negative leads to negativity. Although everyone feels disappointment and anxiety, not everyone is beat down about it.

A pessimist would say that they are preventing the actuality of future suffering. Life ending might be a consequence, but it is passive and in recognition that there was nothing to be deprived in the first place (just our possible present sadness our projections of no future humans). — schopenhauer1

Right. I consider birth to be unnecessary and potentially harmful. It's like eating a cookie that may be stale. Is it worth it? Maybe. Then again you could get food poisoning. In this case, another person is getting food poisoning (disease/illness, accidents, disasters, death).

But it's not something I really get all worked up about, which I sense you are (using my omniscient powers of internet-empathy). Life goes on, as they say.

You know you can't actually do anything — schopenhauer1

So, in other words, defeatism.

but you are not going to let delusions that it can be overcome or the idea that we must keep producing for producing's sake or the idea that we should try to forget what is pretty much an inevitable reality that pervades life from keeping us from recognizing this tragic aesthetic. — schopenhauer1

I think this implies that you think everyone else is delusional or masochistic. I'm not necessarily disagreeing, I just want to make this clear.

You don't rebel by Nietzschean embrace. He had it all wrong. He increased the delusion more. He set a template for many other thinkers and followers to posture and fantasize about embracing (read overcoming) suffering. No, you rebel by recognizing that the suffering that is contained or is existence simply sucks, and that it is not good and recognizing it for what it is. No delusions of trying to twist it into rhetorical flourishes of "goodness" or by accepting it, or by embracing it. No, you have every right to dislike it and you should. The sooner we can rid ourselves of the delusions and recognize the existential dilemmas and contingent sufferings, put it on the table and see the pendulum of survival/goals and boredom, contingent painful experiences, annoyances as real- the instrumentality of all things of the world, then I think we can live with more verity. — schopenhauer1

This whole paragraph screams defeatism to me. Because what better way of amplifying suffering than by focusing on it and actively disliking every aspect of it that pervades your life? Nietzsche thought that the strong would be able to enjoy and relish life in a way that the weak could not. Call it delusional but at least they are enjoying it.

This is the opposite of my idea of Rebellious Pessimism. It is not good to accept suffering. Complaining is fine.. Bitch to your hearts content and be discontent with it because it is always there and unrealistic to think it can be otherwise. — schopenhauer1

But why? Do you think bitching about it makes it any better? It's completely defeatist!

And the present can be pretty crappy too. — schopenhauer1

Only if you make it.

I think your post got deleted.

I've been thinking about this more and would like to share some thoughts to further the discussion.

From a Buddhist perspective, most suffering is caused by tanha. There are three types of tanha (sensual, being, and not-being). This is the type of suffering that I assume you are most familiar with, as it is strikingly similar to Schopenhauer's posited metaphysical Will. However, this does not cover the suffering caused from external influences, such as a natural disaster. Typically a religious Buddhist would say that this evil was caused by karma.

Karma could, I suppose, be stretched to become a secular idea. By simply looking at karma as the description of causality, one can see how evil arises.

Which leads to the connection to Stoicism. If you can't control something, don't fret about it. The source of non-tanhanic suffering is from conflict with what you cannot control. How you deal with a situation is how you experience a situation.

From this perspective, it seems like there really aren't any problems, related to existence, left. Ideally, if you expunge desire and mitigate conflict, life becomes a quite peaceful and manageable affair.

Buddhism teaches that internal suffering, tanha, is caused by ignorance, attachment, and aversion (to coincide with each of the three types of tanha). Think about war. Think about how much conflict could be avoided if everyone seriously looked at their lives and got rid of these three poisons and therefore tanha and therefore suffering. Would there be war? Would we have conflict?

I think Buddhism diagnosis and prescription usually works, and leads not only to non-suffering but flourishing. And Stoicism is simply how you deal with the remaining suffering, which, incidentally, is what I am now beginning to see as the only type of suffering that makes childbirth harmful. Ebola, for example, is reason enough for a woman to not have a child in Africa. The potential for nuclear war is reason enough to abstain from having children. But abstaining from having children because they might feel bored or feel unsatisfied with something seems very decadent.

I'm excited to start reading it. I ordered a used copy of it and it is arriving some time this week, just in time for the Thanksgiving holiday.

One of my favorite songs by one of my favorite groups (sadly no longer together). Canopy Shade, by Trophy Wife.

Interesting self-observation I just had: when I post an argument that I am not completely sure about (more of just musings or general impressions) that gets liked, it gives me the superficial sense that I am "right" without actually knowing why I am right.

Now if I post an argument that details a position that I am passionate about, and garners likes, it's nice to see other people appreciating my ideas.

Kind of strange.

In addition to the reasons I have already presented, I think it would make longer conversations difficult to follow. — Postmodern Beatnik

Completely agree.

Anonymity would be a good idea if the single, unanimous goal of this forum was to conduct formal philosophical discussions. But this isn't the case. We would lose the sense of community and informal "friendship", as well as the ability to talk nonchalantly in a thread unrelated to philosophy specifically. I think it would be artificial and unattractive to current and future members.

I did not know this was an option. Good to know.

Also, negative reinforcement usually does not deter trolls, but it does deter people who are honestly looking for a discussion. It is possible to just ignore posts that you feel are not of quality.

I don't have much that I disagree with you on, except that maybe it is impossible to assume how other people perceive the world. In which case we need more input, from other users.

At the same time, though, negative karma can lead to mob-rule. The fear of public internet shame (look how many dislikes you got, what an idiot!) can lead to people not posting things that may actually be good content. Furthermore, other people can subconsciously be drawn in to think that the posts with negative karma are automatically "bad" (why??? - because anonymous internet users disagree...therefore it is wrong?). Instead of forming their own opinion, they base it off the karma system. It would be best to get rid of the system entirely, but if it has to be here, make it positive.

To expand on my previous reply to you in this thread, I think many people (including myself) swing around like a pendulum during their lives. Sometimes we are able to deal with the crap in life, and sometimes we can't. I don't think there is a single, winner-takes-all philosophy that will solve all of life's problems. There are simply some guidelines that apply depending on how the subject sees fit. It's absurd and kind of funny to think about.

Do you think your conception of the pessimist's position is sufficient?

I think it serves as a bare-minimum position. Like I said above, we are all pendulums swinging around. Sometimes Buddhism works really, really well for me. Other times not so much. But no matter what, the idea that everyone is a fellow suffering that should be treated with respect and compassion rings true to me. It's pure and simple. But it is also lacking some of the structure and meaning that so many of us are so deeply pursuing.

These are just examples I have seen in the forums or in discussions I have seen. — schopenhauer1

I see. Thank you for the examples, I was not aware of the influence Stoicism has on this forum.

The other philosopher thrown around a lot is Nietzsche because he apparently embraced the suffering. — schopenhauer1

Yes, amor fati.

The do think that life has suffering at the least, and their answer, if I was to boil it down to a slogan is "be indifferent to situations one cannot control". — schopenhauer1

Hence the adjective "stoic", meaning enduring hardship.

I think you are right about the general slogan of Stoicism. Buddhism would posit that it is important to let go of your desires as well. In this way, the two philosophies can be paired together as the ultimate secular philosophy of life. You have Stoicism's teachings of how to deal with the suffering you cannot avoid, and you have Buddhism's teachings of how to avoid the other type of suffering, the self-caused suffering. Stoicism would say that a natural disaster is not itself a "bad thing", but rather your reaction to the natural disaster is a bad thing. Buddhism would say that your desires (tanha), or Schopenhauer's Will, is the cause of every other type of suffering. That's my take on it anyway. Someone whoop me into shape if I butchered it.

Generally speaking, this would be something of the following:
1) Not procreating or creating a new generation that will suffer
2) Asceticism to deny the world/will/will-to-live so as to achieve a metaphysical state of calm
3) Seeing everyone as fellow-sufferers who deserve compassion — schopenhauer1

I don't honestly have any problems with this position, as it's basically what I uphold today. This doesn't mean you can't additionally be a stoic or a buddhist. But that wasn't your original question, was it?

To which I suggest a topic I made a while back about the clarity of pessimism as a worldview.

For many of the people on this forum, Stoicism is a stock answer to how people handle life faced with conditions that a Philosophical Pessimist might enumerate upon. Since Stoicism keeps coming up, I'd like to know what some users on here think of Stoicism in regards to it being an answer to the problems posed by the Philosophical Pessimist. — schopenhauer1

Is it? I'm not aware that any non-pessimists on here are self-described stoics. I don't remember seeing any major discussions over stoicism here in the past, either (although I could be wrong and if you have links then I will look at them). Unless they are specifically saying they are stoics, then all they are showing is a tendencies towards stoic-like beliefs. Generalizations may be harmful in discussions.

1) Does the Stoic ethic provide an answer to the existential boredom/instrumentality/annoyances/negative experiences/desire/flux/becoming-and-never-being, etc. that the Philosophical Pessimist poses? — schopenhauer1

If it didn't have an answer then it would be a flawed philosophy. Presumably followers of Stoicism would not think these problems pose much of an issue. But I'm not exactly a stoic myself.

2) Is Stoicism a kind of Philosophical Pessimism or at least close cousins? If it is not a kind of Philosophical Pessimism, how might they differ? — schopenhauer1

It is a common thing to hear Buddhism and Stoicism as the perfect couple. They are very similar. Buddhist philosophy is pessimistic in that it realizes that life is suffering. But it is not defeatist. It offers a solution to this unsavory condition. Stoicism does the same thing, and is oftentimes extremely compatible with Buddhist philosophy.

Also, as I'm sure you already know, philosophical pessimism is a family resemblance term. So someone's pessimism may not be the same pessimism as another person's. This makes it difficult to separate people's beliefs into strict categories.

3) How might a Philosophical Pessimist's answer to solving life's sufferings be different than a Stoic's? — schopenhauer1

I would need to know what the solution of your flavor of pessimism is before answering this question.

Done. Thanks.

I call it, Man and Dog. One of my finest pieces.

Man and Dog

True. The like system on the new PF is far better in my opinion than the like system in the old PF. Mostly because there are no dislike options. That's not to say people can just post whatever they want, but rather they can post freely without mob lynchings. It's no fun seeing your posts disliked without any explanation, which leads to the assumption that the voting system was only being used as a way of expressing agreement or lack thereof.

Would it be possible for only the user to know what post of theirs was liked?

To see a post with likes, no matter its content, subconsciously makes people think it is superior to other posts that don't have likes. I have found myself only focusing on the posts with likes and ignoring the ones without any.

I f-ing love Foals.

Can you elucidate the differences in the sophomoric complaining of the temperament vs. philosophical pessimism? — schopenhauer1

Like I said above, I don't think being a philosophical pessimist leads to a depressive demeanor. This is the point of this discussion, is it not?: why pessimists generally have a depressive-like temperament.

My opinion is that a philosophical pessimist that has a depressive temperament is fundamentally at fault, not the world. It's the fault of the pessimist that they cannot find a solution to the problems of existence (such as suffering, boredom, time, exile, and death), for if they could, then they wouldn't have such a poor temperament.

I think what you are asking about is the apparent Catch-22 nature of my position: how can someone argue for pessimism without complaining about the world? To which I reply, yes, I suppose pessimism is criticism of the world. But again this topic is about the temperament of the pessimist, not their position. Criticism of the world does not logically lead to depressive characteristics.

To a point, I think pessimists such as myself (and presumably you and others) are unable to completely escape the points of existence that we criticize. This is what depresses me. For example, watching a political debate and seeing just how petty and egoistic it is makes me depressive. Why? Because there is a contradiction between what I expect/desire the world to be like and what the world is really like.

But it is possible to move on from many our points of criticism, or at least mitigate them. It is possible to remove oneself from ennui, from anxiety, from a lot of suffering, from boredom, and even enjoy life (not implying that you do not enjoy life).

So I think, Schopenhauer1, the reason pessimists tend to have a sour temperament is that they see the world as it is, don't like it, but are unable to move past it completely, a case that I would self-diagnose myself with.

Alternatively, the temperament could always just be the result of a chemical imbalance, and the appeal to philosophy is just a silly, post-hoc rationalization (pace Russell).

Also you had some posts a while back on exustential boredom or something of that sort. — schopenhauer1

I don't recall this.

How do I not know[...]you are just not trolling? — schopenhauer1

What kind of response would satisfy your doubt?

Welders make more money than philosophers. We need more welders and less philosophers. — Marco Rubio, Florida Senator and presidential candidate

Isn't this a philosophical statement?

I am going to be completely honest here and contradict parts of what I previously said on the first page of this topic, but I think there is something inherently attractive about a depressive intellectual to many people (including, amusingly enough, myself). Mostly because it is easy to think one is actually doing some deep-shit philosophy when all they are doing is recycling the same things over and over again.

This does not mean philosophical pessimism isn't a legitimate position. But the topic of this discussion is the motive of the temperament of the pessimist (not pessimism per se). I can see no correlation between pessimism and depressive symptoms.

Rather, the depressive symptoms arise when one has not let go of their prior expectations of life. Thus, the position of philosophical pessimism can be of legitimacy, but the temperament can be of relentless, sophomoric complaining.

Everything you said makes sense. Cool stuff.

Depressive Realism.

I'm ordering Hume's An Inquiry Concerning Human Understanding.

To try to rephrase my thinking here: If we don't know we are correct (as in, we are not omniscient), then is it reasonable to hold a position as truth?

Wait a second...is this post-modernism?

Hi . I'm currently working on a quasi-serious philosophical article concerning the philosophies surrounding the Force in the Star Wars universe. Is it cool if I submit it here once I am done?

It's important to understand that philosophy is not science, and that to expect it to produce results on the magnitude and abundance of science is misunderstanding what philosophy is and what it does. Progress can be made in philosophy, but not in the manner of scientists being awarded the Nobel prize by discovering the Higgs Boson. There's not going to be an E = MC^2 in philosophy, although personally I feel Kant comes close.

To me it's more interesting though that the legality of the use of nuclear weapons isn't questioned, whereas it does highlight that all weapons act as a deterrent. Yet, in that sense mustard gas would work as a deterrent too but we outlawed that; just like ordnances designed to maim instead of kill. Outlawed. Biological weapons. Outlawed. — Benkei

Well, mustard gas doesn't lead to a Cold War and MAD.

It seems rather counter-intuitive to "allow" nuclear weapons as an option on the table, as the most gruesome, where it concerns the fall-out, and deadliest and most destructive weapon when lesser weapons were banned for, well, less. — Benkei

It has to do with the magnitude of destruction. Mustard gas does a lot of damage, but pales in comparison to a nuclear bomb. To put complete faith in international accords to not use certain weapons is naive: why don't we just outlaw war itself?! These weapons are necessary to keep enemies from using these same weapons on ourselves. It's unfortunate, unstable, and scary, but ultimately necessary. Using mustard gas to keep others from using mustard gas won't work; the destruction is not great enough. Having the ability to nuke a country the size of Russia off the face of the Earth is enough incentive to not launch nukes at us.

I know this may not be a popular opinion, but our "progress" is ultimately doomed, whether it be from the trigger-happy terrorists with nuclear weapons, or from the eventual entropic heat death of the universe. We can plug our ears and cover our eyes from this reality and pretend it doesn't exist, but ultimately we are just kicking the can down the road.

Glad to be here by the way. Nice place. — Erik

Welcome to the insane asylum :P

I don't believe the sun will rise in the east. I know the sun MUST rise in the east, given the mechanics of celestial bodies. It's not a belief. The sun has no choice. — Bitter Crank

But do you know that there isn't going to be a mysterious demon that pops in and out of existence and tomorrow will change the rotation of the Earth? Call it absurd, but how do you know?

To continue:

Just a made up scenario: Say I read a philosophical article. The article talks about the position of compatibilism, in relationship to the free will debate. Say I find it fairly convincing, and am comfortable in calling myself a compatibilist.

Now say a month later I read a different philosophical article, which attacks the compatibilist position. I find it thoroughly convincing and am forced to drop my prior compatibilist tendencies.

Did my original position count as knowledge? Obviously not, since it is wrong because I was convinced by the other article.

Does my new position count as knowledge? How can it?, since this new position is just as conceivable to be disproven as my prior position.

There will always be the unknown possibility, the never-before-thought-of position. It doesn't mean it actually exists, but it is conceivable that it exists, and therefore we are always on our toes, so to speak, when it comes to justifying our beliefs. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm basically advocating Pyrrhonism.

I used the Sun rising in the West as an example because that would not happen. I do not live in a place in which the Sun rises in the West, and as far as I know it is impossible for any place in the solar system except Venus for the Sun to rise in the West.

Your argument is convincing, but there's a possibility that it may be false, so I'm going to disbelieve it. — Arkady

This is similar to that zingy argument against logical positivism that makes it self-refuting, you know, the whole "well is the statement: 'only empirical statements are meaningful', empirical?". But it's more of a guideline.

To believe something is not the same as knowing without any doubt that it's falsity is impossible. — shmik

Then why believe anything?

That was the point.