The problem isn't that no one is happy, the problem is that so many people think that they're supposed to be. — Wosret

This is such a great insight, Wosret. I wish I had said it myself ;)

Maybe we can't get into this here, but I don't see a reason for the distinction. It seems to me that pain and pleasure are bad and good on their own terms, whether you think so or not, and that nothing else fulfills these criteria. So insofar as there's a notion of eudaimonia, joy, happiness, or contentment that is not about pleasure, it either doesn't make sense or isn't worth pursuing if it does. — The Great Whatever

Pleasure and pain are indicators of general well-being. The value placed upon these feelings, and others, such as meaning, eudaimonia, happiness, etc, is up to the person themselves to determine. For example, I think there are different types of pleasures, one that simply stimulates the nerve endings, and one that is actually meaningful. The former leaves the person in a state of emptiness after it goes away, while the latter is something that simply complements the feeling of happiness. But perhaps you are right in that this belongs in a different thread.

It is certainly related to the hypostatization of the mind as a substance with an active faculty of willing, as in Descartes' philosophy, which is probably related to the Christian notion of the soul. It's a historical question. The more important thing is just that I don't think this notion of an existentialist heroic free will is at all true to life. That's all. — The Great Whatever

Pre-Socratic philosophy explored the ideas of free will long before Christianity. In fact (correct me if I am wrong here), Christianity's "free will" ideas came from the influence of the Mediterranean region.

I don't buy into classical libertarian free will either. But the fact of the matter is, we are, at the bare minimum, trapped within an illusion of having free will. There's no escaping it. Every action we do feels like we have actively had a role in it. This kind of fictionalism, in my opinion, is compatible with the existential heroism you speak of.

I'm not sure what that would mean, unless it means being dead. I don't know what being alive entails, if not suffering in the broad sense (feeling pleasure and pain), and I don't know I can imagine a life that is somehow only pleasant. To experience seems to bring with it the possibility of disappointment and suffering. — The Great Whatever

I reject the idea that pleasure is synonymous with happiness. Happiness, for me, is synonymous with contentedness and eudaimonia, and although pleasure often does accompany happiness, it is itself a completely separate feeling that cannot cause happiness by itself. Empty pleasure is suffering in itself, merely a distraction from the discontent.

If you can learn to prepare for the worst, hope for the best, and expect the mediocre, then you can live your life in such a way that minimizes disappointments and suffering, and even take some enjoyment out of life.

In the Sartrean sense, anyway -- there's even a direct lineage from Sartre's notion of the will back to Descartes' in the Meditations, who in turn relates this explicitly to the will of God. The idea that the will is free from external influence and acts as a sort of force doesn't make much sense out of the context of that tradition. — The Great Whatever

Why does it not make sense? Is this related to determinism/fatalism?

Theoretically optional? As opposed to actually optional, I suppose... — The Great Whatever

What I meant by theoretical was that it is not guaranteed to eliminate all suffering, otherwise that would be the nirvana fallacy. It is perfectly conceivable, however, to minimize the amount of suffering one experiences.

Existentialism is a holdover from Christian ideas of the will. Those aren't tenable in the face of everyday life, imo. — The Great Whatever

I would like some clarification on this.

Glad to see your dental and psychological health is doing alright. Hopefully the heart thing isn't anything.

I was under the impression that you thought there were alternatives.

Truth is, every injury and such I've had has been an ordeal that has somehow help me develop into who I am today. When I play baseball and do other activities I can honestly say this is a lot of stuff i really could have lived much better without, but hey... shit happens and I seem to have the ability to deal with this and move on.

If the next things finally kills my sports career, I'll be a bit disappointed, but hey... there is always another rock for me to shove up my own private Mt. Olympus. — Mayor of Simpleton

I like you attitude. Cool story.

Here is a quick rundown of what I think about this issue:

According to tradition, during his trial in Athens, Socrates muttered: The unexamined life is not worth living.

I completely agree. To be a person who just runs through life without analyzing it lives a mediocre life.

But a person who spends too much time ruminating about life and not living life ends up ruining their life.

The trick is to figure out how to deal with pain. I said it before and I'll say it again: For the most part, pain is inevitable, but suffering is theoretically optional.

Additionally, there is no mutual exclusivity between suffering and happiness.

The existentialists felt that the truly free man makes a conscious choice to not commit suicide every day he wakes up. And if a man is not making a conscious choice, then he is not authentic, but of bad faith. I honestly do believe that most people on Earth do not really understand why they keep living, they just mindlessly go through the actions, rocking back and forth between suffering and boredom without even realizing it. This is why Socrates was correct. To analyze one's life and to continue to live regardless has the chance of procuring a truly meaningful existence. To be extremely familiar with the sense of one's mortality is authentic and pure.

Pragmatism is focus on outcomes. A pragmatist accepts a thing as real "for all practical purposes" and finds no value in trying to go beyond that. — Mongrel

Is there any other way of determining the existence of something other than to directly observe it and assume all methods of rational inquiry are working?

Damn, that's a lot of injuries. A brain tumor also sounds scary. I've always wanted to get a brain scan, mostly just for shits and giggles, but also to make sure nothing malignant is going on in there. It's cool that you are able to look at it in a lighthearted way. MPatHG is one of my favorite movies.

Pretty much spot on. The theist might not even see any absurdity in existence, which is why god exists. Or, the theist sees the absurdity in existence but decides that this is fundamentally a proof of god: i.e. look at how ridiculous life is if god doesn't exist! He must exist!

My stance is one would first have to define 'art' before being able to judge its quality. — Sentient

I agree. I think art is mostly subjective. If you make something, chances are someone is going to find it aesthetically appealing.

For a lot of modern art: if I hadn't been told that this piece was by "so and so" who is "very famous on the European continent," I probably would have passed it over without a second glance.

Thank you Sapientia. I was worried this thread would take a turn in that direction...

Are skeptical probabilities not enough to pragmatically determine if something is real or not? So being sober and fully rational would make experiences more probable of being true than experiences under the influence or while in an irrational mindset?

I printed this out and started annotating it. Hopefully I'll be able to join the discussion within a day or two.

Well, it seems like I haven't quite reached that point yet, if ever.

If we want to keep discussing this, maybe we ought to make a new thread so this one doesn't become confusing with two different topics.

Sorry to hear about your brother. Hopefully he will continue to be alright.

Regarding you being an anime girl:

Interesting that antinatalist philosophy made your guys depressed. I would think it would come as a sort of relief, or hope (no matter how false that hope might be), that there is a way to end suffering, that we don't have to live. That realization is liberating, even if ultimately unrealistic. — The Great Whatever

It's depressing because it conflicts with society's view that life is worth starting.

I have started to view it as a tragicomic happening, and I try to make the most of the life I have.

But to answer your question, if I saw a prancing zebra, I wouldn't deny what I saw. Deciding what it means that I saw it (whether it was real or not) would be an interpretation. — Mongrel

What do you mean, "interpretation"? Sorry, I was confused with this part of your response.

Well, it was like that for a while. I think I stayed home from elementary school the following day. I remember taking a lot of ibuprofen pills to cope with the headaches, because every day after school I would come home with a headache.

Luckily it calmed down after a while (months), during which my tics transitioned into different facial expressions and vocals, so my eyes got a break. It kind of goes in cycles. These days TS is a minor nuisance, but it is still visible if you talk to me for a while in person. I've learned to control and suppress the tics in certain situations like a speech or an interview, but every now and then they become really bad when I'm stressed or anxious. For example, when I am running a 5K, my tics can get bad because I'm stressed. Or when I'm taking a midterm exam. It's weird, and it's hard to explain the feeling. It's almost like my eyebrows (my current tic) feel heavy and are attached to a rubber band that is under tension, pulling them together.

Interesting story. Thank you for sharing.

I remember the day I started getting tics from Tourette's Syndrome. I just had this weird feeling in my eyes, like I needed to roll them back in my head. So I did it, again, and again, and again, until I got one of the worst migraines of my life, culminating in me puking and wishing I could die. I was terrified that this was going to be my life.

People love drama. It's interesting, so long as it is not happening to them. Then it sucks.

If it helps at all, I've always treasured this quote (from a forgotten source): pain in life is inevitable, but suffering is optional. It's something that I try to apply to my life on a daily basis.

In fact, I won't ever deny the data of my senses. — Mongrel

What if you are on LSD and see a zebra prancing down the street? Is that zebra real?

I'm sorry for the loss of your friend. That sounds awful.

I have experienced withdrawal from medication before and it sucks. Like, panic attack at two in the morning, barely able to breathe, just trying desperately to keep from losing control. Scary stuff, would not recommend.

When did you find out you had epilepsy?

I have to agree with you on philosophy. Philosophy has made me horribly depressed at times, but has also led me to many feelings of eudaimonia (such as when I "get something" and it "clicks") and liberation. A cursory, and thoroughly misinterpreted, introduction to antinatalist philosophy a few years back landed me in the hospital due to obsessional, suicidal thoughts. After that, I started therapy and was diagnosed with OCD. I'm okay for the most part now though.

I fall into a depressive state often, usually when anxious or in a state of boredom. I find that a large amount of sleep actually makes things worse. My usual mood is melancholic with short lived spurts of energy.

I am sorry to hear that you don't hold much vitality for life.

Let us imagine that the concept of categorical/unconditional imperatives/obligations was sensible. Let us also imagine that these are true. What then? How would this world differ from one without objective/inherent/intrinsic/absolute/universal morality (henceforth simply referred to as "morality")? — Michael

You are assuming these don't exist? For many people (excluding myself), there are moral obligations.

Reminds me of the time a friend and I were running an elevation workout together for the cross country season and decided to race down the hill. The hill is about a quarter of a mile long, with the steepest part at the end. When we started sprinting, I quickly lost my center of gravity and ended practice with a bloody knee and forearm. I totally wiped out :P

Presumably, if one can assume they are in a rational state of inquiry (not dreaming, high, or hallucinating), then things that are perceived by the senses can be seen as real, as in existing.

Agreed. How could science even start to try to uncover the rationality, or lack thereof, of the universe?

Does this mean that any assertion that the universe is meaningless or irrational is based purely off of a gut feeling?

@Wosret Tell me all about it, I'm a zombie, and only pretend to understand.

Dennett would have laughed.

I think the experience of qualia is directly related to consciousness, as in, consciousness is a necessary prerequisite for qualia.

However, Hume argued that we are qualia - the self is a conglomeration of sensory inputs. I have to ask what experiences these sensory inputs, though. For if there is nothing to experience these inputs, they aren't qualia, they are just electrical impulses.

Good post. How do we know if a universe is rational?

Don't...tempt me...:P

I have thoughts, ideas, and questions that I want to discuss. I don't know anyone in person to discuss these topics with. Philosophy Forums and other online forums are a refuge for me to get down my thoughts and hear some feedback. Mostly I use them to reorganize my thinking and tidy up the clutter bin that is my head; it's a type of therapy, so to speak.

I consider woo to be anything that attempts to explain a phenomenon without the use of rigorous rationality.

This is exactly what I am saying. Posting is easy to do. Whereas in the old PF it seemed like people took more time with their responses.

No, just in general.

I completely agree, the like/dislike option always bothered me in the past forum. It made it difficult for me to judge a submission by its worth and not by its popularity.

The best possible future for humanity, in my view, is one where we collectively agree to cease reproduction and live our lives for as long as we desire to. We would be abstaining from forcing people into existence while pursuing our dreams for as long as we can sustain them.

Why would someone need faith if life is not absurd?

Quoted directly from the SEP:

"Camus centers his work on choosing to live without God."