We may be condemned to be free, but we are not free not to die. We are not free not to be uncomfortable. We are not free to not be bored. — schopenhauer1
I don't think you can count the impossible as a choice. I think you may agree that choice would be the set of all possibilities that could be actualized in your life. Talking about choice beyond that simply doesn't make sense. If we don't set this definition, we end up talking in nonsensical terms such as choosing whether blue is a colour.
I would disagree that we are free not to be bored or uncomfortable. I think the most obvious way to demonstrate this is by pointing out that even on a bed of nails, some find it comfortable. Even in isolation, some are never bored. So to arrive at your assertion, you would need to define the words as things guaranteed to occur. Thus stripping their negation from the set of all life possibilities.
We cannot just "be" we are always "becoming". — schopenhauer1
I'm sure you would call it striving ey Schopenhauer
;)
Just as with Arthur, I disagree with you here. You are setting the rules of engagement without any logical foundation to them. Claiming things must be so and not justifying why.
- Our wills need to survive. What is suicide but a logical contradition to this so called universal law
- comfort. What about those who seek discomfort, even enjoy pain.
Unjustified, unverified rules of engagement.
It's always trying to get the next thing — schopenhauer1
Again these rules of engagement are unjust. We observe time (at least in a spatial sense) linearly. Therefore we are always, by definition, moving to the next thing. This is not a choice. To Just Be, would to somehow be able to freeze time. So to build premises around what life is, based on such self fulfilling terminology doesn't make sense.
but we are never content — schopenhauer1
And to hit the proverbial nail on the head of why Post Modernism is, to me, the only way to Be. Contentness comes from within yourself. If you give up the meta narratives and accept full responsibility, absurdity and possibility for your life, contentness and everything else become states you choose. You can define your contentness to be that encompassing moments of not being content. It is not an infinite subdivisible moment of measurability, contentness is cumulative.
I think my favourite iconography from all of philosophy was whem Camus sketches out;
While Sysphus was condemmed to push the boulder, he was not condemned to be sad whilst doing so
The freedom this perspective offers when you abondon the meta narratives and recognise choice for what it is and can be, seems only achievable through post modernist thinking.
Hence What is it good for, absolutely EVERYTHING.