Dear mother of god... Is the the soothing pleasure of the gods-given Papaveraceae degraded to anal retention here? — Hillary

Eh? You?! Talk about religion being the opiate of the people!

And "soothing pleasure"? All intoxicants sooner or later show their ugly side.

You can do this, you can give up lesser pleasures in the pursuit of better ones.
— baker

Yeah, it can be done but it's not exactly something an untrained person can pull off. — Agent Smith

If you prefer hot pizza over cold pizza, then you understand the principle of pursuing higher pleasures and are able to act on it. How consciously and how consistently is the matter at hand.

The lower pleasures tend to, well, give more pleasure for a given amount of effort.

In this case, you seem to be talking about, say, preferring classical music to rock music.
I'm not talking about such fixed scales. I'm talking about the aforementioned principle.

Oh, but man is the beauty of the world, the best thing that ever happened to the Universe! Anxiety only befalls the weak and the unworthy.

Many people think that true pleasure and happiness comes from moderation (rather than indulgence) and cutting out that which is unnecessary - hence the appeal of minimalism in this vulgar consumerist era. — Tom Storm

As long as the intention behind one's consumption is the same (to satisfy a craving), it doesn't really matter whether one goes full blown hedonism or the moderate epicureanism. Epicureanism is just an anally retentive hedonism.

You can do this, you can give up lesser pleasures in the pursuit of better ones.

The idea that we're here merely to eat and shit is egregious.

Why did Jews NOT lose their faith in a (benevolent) God? — Agent Smith

There is an answer to this, but it's too politically incorrect to talk about it in public.

So why do we consider it murder if a mother abandons her newborn in a dumpster after being born? — Harry Hindu

Probabably because we, at least nominally, live in a legal system where it is the action that is relevant.

In some cultures in the past, killing one's own child wasn't murder, but killing another person's child was.

Not to worry, Smith. If you're not a fertile female of child-bearing age, then it's very unlikely you will ever have to decide to terminate your pregnancy. — 180 Proof

It's so wonderful that the abortion dicsussion is done mostly by men. And that most women who participate in it protect the interests of men.

Yay, the best a woman can be in this world is a fool, a beautiful little fool. That's what grandma fought for.

Then the question is who suffers more and who has the power to prevent the greater suffering in using contraception instead of relying on abortion as the only option to prevent a birth? — Harry Hindu

Again, too narrow a scope. The issue is the intention for engaging in sex in the first place. In discussions of abortion, this is rarely or never addressed.

Then the question is who suffers more and who has the power to prevent the greater suffering in using contraception instead of relying on abortion as the only option to prevent a birth? — Harry Hindu

And since you bring up suffering and magnitudes of it:

What is the greater suffering:

Enduring a sexual urge and not acting on it until it passes (after about 10 minutes),
or risking the health and life of the woman with hormonal contraceptives (and abortions, in case the contraceptives fail)?

At what point are we merely projecting human qualities onto objects vs. those qualities actually existing independent of our projecting them? — Harry Hindu

This is the wrong direction of approaching the issue. It's a direction that makes sure that the matter never gets resolved.

If, on the other hand, we focus on the intention of those involved in abortion, it all gets very clear and very simple. They act with the intention to kill. They know what that glob of cells is likely going to develop into, and this is what they want to stop from happening. So as far as intention goes, it's irrelevant whether the unborn feels pain or not, whether it should be considered a person or not. Because the intention is to kill.

The argument that all sex is coerced due to societal pressures is pretty stupid. — Hanover

And back to the rule of the dick.

The surest way to keep the discussion of this topic superficial and never moving from the spot.

What is the institution that has the jurisdiction over this issue, so that one can file a complaint to it properly?

You have a point! We know for certain (?) that pleasure is better than pain. What could be more desirable than pleasure in your opinion? My mind draws a blank. Is it the same for you? — Agent Smith

There are different pleasures. Some more sophisticated than others, some with more harmful side-effects or consequences than others.

Understanding this principle, one would be prudent to opt for the less harmful pleasures, or to deliberately look for them in the first place.

The need for the abortion, after all, is typically the result of a mistake, in that they did not want to have a child at this time in their life, but they made choices that led to the pregnancy. — Hanover

There is enormous societal pressure to engage in sex, regardless whether one wants to have children or not. Regularly engaging in sex is even considered by many as the mark of a healthy relationship, and of psychological normalcy to begin with. Not engaging in sex is seen by many (including psychologists/psychiatrists) as pathological.

The choice isn't actually between engaging in sex or not. It's between having a relationship or not; or between being seen as normal and worthy, or not.

For example, my knee hurts because of the two years of kick boxing I did, but I'm not having it scoped because I don't want to. The decision isn't moral or not moral. It's just a matter of choice.

You wouldn't have that freedom of interpretation in every country/culture. Not even when it comes to bum knees.
If anything, people are expected to trust medicine unquestioningly, and if they don't they get regarded as irrational. Refusing a suggested medical treatment could even get one categorized as a negligent patient and one could lose one's medical insurance.

What I would think would be immoral is if you got to decide for me

Depends who that "you" is. If it's "society", the legislative body, someone more powerful than you, how can you still say that it's immoral if they decide for you?

What we have to agree on is whether behavior is legal and acceptable in a diverse society. — Bitter Crank

As long as, in practice, our idea of democracy amounts to



what hope can there be ...

There is also this celebration of abortion that the left has, as if having an abortion is a badge of honor rather than a tragedy
— Harry Hindu

Where did you see this happening? Just curious, because I haven't. — frank

I don't know how "leftist" those people were, but I have seen several cases of women or fictional female characters being proud or otherwise thinking positively about having had an abortion.

For example, in a mainstream youth book (I forgot the title by now) about a teenage girl (15 or so), abortion is described as a rite of passage to adulthood and normalcy.
One of the characters in "Sex and the City" didn't think anything much about having had two abortions.
In a French documentary about the availability of abortion in post WW II France (it was illegal then), a woman vividly complained and bemoaned how her husband had to be more careful and couldn't enjoy himself properly during sex because abortion wasn't legal.
I personally know some women for whom having an abortion is entirely normal. I know one who said she wanted to get pregnant just so that she could have an abortion.


As usual in this dicussion, women have the least say. And most of those who do talk, represent interests that benefit the men most.

Letting Go of Hedonism


One cannot let go of something unless one has something better to hold on to.

Looking at the issue thus one is faced with a natural question, what then is the nature of an aesthetic contemplation, if we will care to call it that, which is free from the dependencies on external stimuli, the risk of addiction, and the desire for its continuity in time? An aesthetic contemplation which is free from the residues of “experience” (ironically) and “knowledge”? — skyblack

That would be pure art.

(Leaving off at this one sentence precisely because to say anything more would negate pure art.)

So I can reasonably assert that eating meat is NOT more healthy; as Louis believes it is. — Marvin Katz

Leaving aside that a sample of one is not representative --

Eating meat clearly is more healthy, for one's ego, if one believes that humans live to consume the planet and everything on it.

↪Judaka ↪baker ↪Philosophim
Ugh. Where to begin.

If you think the way you do here on this thread, then you have no understanding of human nature yet. — L'éléphant

Oh dear.

But you do?


"Human nature" is an ideological concept, not an empirical one, therefore, any discussion of "human nature" is necessarily going to be ideological. Ie. people making claims without backing them up with empirical evidence.

This sounds like a modernized Western rendition of Jainism. Or Quietism. Both are pernicious.
— baker

What is pernicious about it? — schopenhauer1

Even on an entirely mundane level, it's clear where they go wrong: the quietist whines and complains and is miserable, while other people are having fun. He gets nothing for all his misery, apart from a little ego satisfaction.

Ok, so I know you would like me to imbibe from the "TRUTH" of Buddhism en totale, because (like hipsters say), "I just won't get it" otherwise.. but what is the most important parts of the Pali Canon would you like me to research. I know I know, in order to really "KNOW" Buddhism, I am to become a scholar... but we are on an internet forum. I cannot expect for example, to debate someone on here by saying, "Just read WWR and all Scholarship on Schopenhauer" because that is not feasible and unfair in this platform.



As a meta-analysis of this dialogue, how do you want me to proceed? — schopenhauer1

I'm not a Buddhist nor do I advocate Buddhism. I do have some knowledge of and interest in Buddhism. When someone boldly declares that the Buddha was wrong or implies as much, I am curious as to what this person has to say. I use my knowledge of Early Buddhism to inquire of them what they have to say and test their knowledge of Buddhism.

You keep saying things like "we're in an inescapable situation" and such. I wonder where you get your certainty. I find it bewildering how a person could have such certainty.

Like I've been saying all along: Early Buddhism, the Pali Canon.

I have read it, and I am not convinced of such a state. I just don't buy it. I've read about ego-death, etc. — schopenhauer1

What in particular did you read?

This is the problem with mixing scientific concepts. — schopenhauer1

Yes.

A quick search gave this:
Examples of theorems misapplied to non-mathematical contexts

The SEP in the entry on Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorems gives some examples of how they are sometimes misunderstood/misapplied.

That beings said, I explicitly showed all my cards as it were in the OP by saying that whilst admiring Schopenhauer's system, I do not particularly agree with his assessment that we can even get out of this suffering situation by even ascetic contemplation. In other words, I don't think a state of peaceful "nothingness" is a thing. "Serenity now" permanently doesn't seem like a thing to me. Rather, it is a nice romanticized idea of what people would like. A permanent state of rest, but not quite dead. Platonic peace, without the becoming of the changing flux of this world. It's a nice notion, I just don't buy it. — schopenhauer1

When asceticism is presented in such an ascetic (eh!) manner, it's no wonder it doesn't come across as promising.

Why not inform oneself about it some more, as opposed to sticking to some vague, superficial notions of it?

Quantum mechanics demonstrates that abolishing the apparently fundamental form of subject and object does not abolish the world, as Schopenhauer assumes. When we bring the ideas of Kant and Schopenhauer into the 21st century, we’re not obliged to bring their relative ignorance with us. I find it worthwhile to rework these ideas in the context of neuroscience and quantum physics, with due respect to the original. — Possibility

In that case, you've determined yourself to be a materialist.

I agree that a permanent state of peaceful ‘nothingness’ doesn’t seem achievable. This, in my view, is equivalent to death. I think that these notions of nirvana, heaven, even enlightenment and sainthood are romanticised attempts to reify or concretise a preferred fantasy, much like ‘individual will’.

In their native contexts, those terms have definitions, and they are not what you claim them to be.
For some reason, you use those terms, but insist in your idiosyncratic definitions of them. Why?

I imagine it would have been only a fraction of a fraction of people who didn’t think Columbus or Magellan were insane when they set sail, including their own crew. They didn’t need to deny this optical limitation - they simply recognised that appearances were deceiving. — Possibility

This is extraordinary. Do you have any actual historical support for this interpretation? Such a diary entries, contemporary essays, ...?

Myth of the flat Earth

The perception that we do exist as part of a broader system (not ‘bigger picture’) is not meant to be consoling. It’s meant to open our minds to this potential that has people like you so afraid you’d prefer to not exist or begrudgingly comply than acknowledge it.
/.../
No, I’m trying to explain that Schopenhauer’s pessimism was just a starting point. Philosophy is not about describing a ToE (what appears to be), but about actualising wisdom (how to live). Schop argued that our preference for and actualising of this apparent ‘individual will’ entails suffering, and that because of this we tend to evaluate a living existence as negative overall. But the world as will is neither negative nor positive, and denying this ‘individual will’, even temporarily, enables one to conceptually process the world as will more accurately, even if we’re unable to describe it precisely using language.

And once again, I’m not saying ‘value in participating’ at all, but rather value (if any) in our capacity to be aware of and participate in an otherwise non-conscious process. Stop twisting my words around, it’s getting really old.

Not that I would wish hardship upon you, but I'd love to see how you hold up under pressure. Like when having a nasty toothache and no access to a dentist for quite some time. Or chronic back pain. Poverty. Being of the wrong skin color.

Because as things stand, you've consistently sounded like someone who is relatively well off or at least like someone who is trying to sound like someone who is relatively well off. You exude that "Let them eat cake!" attitude.

Schopenhauer’s description of reality in itself as the world of ‘will’ helps to bring this underlying logical and qualitative process of any system face-to-face with our quest for an ethical system of intentionality. This is also what the Tao Te Ching aimed to do. Perhaps we can describe this underlying process AS a logical, qualitative system of intentionality, and then develop our complex value structures so that they align with this in relation to our unique situation.

I get that this would seem contrived or backwards to you - the relation of these value structures with being appear to form our self-identity. But this is what Schopenhauer argues - that this consolidation of ‘individual will’ is what got us in this mess in the first place. We tend to think that the value of humanity derives from this capacity to act individually and collectively against the ‘natural’ process of existence, but if there is value in humanity at all, then it is in our capacity to be aware of and participate in it, rather than try to survive it, dominate it, or ‘overcome’ it through procreation, as if it’s a ‘problem’. — Possibility

The Tao Te Ching was written by the upper class, for the upper class. Hence its aloof attitude toward hardship. It's easy to be aloof when someone else does the hard and dirty work.

“Don’t complain, just kill yourself” is the message that people are seeming to say. Comply or die. There is no peace even in trying to vocalize the pessimism. That’s all I’m getting. Double disrespect to the player of the game that doesn’t want to be played. It’s all fucked. — schopenhauer1

Well, if they don't have bread to eat, then they should eat cake!

They ignore or belittle anyone who proposes an alternative, and they take great pride in pointing out how every opportunity to change just appears to be more of the same. — Possibility

Because it's usually not an alternative. Like they say, "Different packaging, same shit."

Because there IS NO one-size-fits-all, ‘concrete’ solution. Because everyone’s situation is different, and changes all the time. Because any step-by-step instruction manual for life is going to be relevant to only those whose situation is identical to yours was.

These are not vague, pie-in-the-sky notions, though. They are the basic switches to change any situation, and are most effective when it appears there is nowhere to go, nothing to see, nothing to do. These three switches - ignorance/awareness, isolation/connection and exclusion/collaboration - are how we engage with the world as will; NOT the world as representation.

Language describes the world as representation, so any ‘concrete’ examples I attempt to give will just seem to be more of the same. And my efforts to get into the science that supports the metaphysics is just ignored or dismissed as ‘word salad’, so clearly that’s going over your head. I’m actually at a loss as to how else I can present this, — Possibility

No need to be at such a loss.

Your approach is one that gives priority to the attitude with which one approaches things in life.
In short, it's not about what in particular one does (as in whether one watches tv or helps in a soup kitchen), it's about how one thinks about what one is doing, how one frames it cognitively.

but I’m also getting the sense that you’re not really interested in what you claim to be asking in the OP. You don’t really WANT to know ‘what is one to do?’ because you prefer this situation of vocal pessimism - it gives you a sense of purpose to take the moral high ground against existence...

I just don't get the sense that the OP was actually asking anything.

Some interpret it this way, sure. Doesn’t mean they’re correct, just because they’re ‘insiders’. That’s like assuming Christian fundamentalists understand the bible correctly. — Possibility

For a no-selfer, you sure are hung up on individuals!

It highlights a fundamental disagreement within Buddhism, though - and there is no standard doctrine or interpretation that resolves it, as evident by the Mahāyāna vs Theravāda criticisms back and forth.

Not everyone feels the need to resolve the disagreements between the Buddhist schools.

It comes down to this question of ‘individuality’ that is at the heart of these discussions. Is there more value in attaining individual enlightenment - non-existence - or in reducing suffering across existence overall?

This is a fallacious question to begin with, born out of a wrong understanding of suffering and enlightenment.

Earlier, you said words to the effect that it is possible to conceive of suffering in such a way so that it isn't a problem. I didn't address that then, and I let you go on with your idiosyncratic understanding of the term. I wondered what you'd have to offer.

Not sure what a ‘no-self’ approach to reduction in suffering has to do with bolstering one’s ego.

It allows you to feel good about what you're doing -- whatever it is that you're doing -- and to condemn others for being so stupid not to see things your way.

Nor do I see how ‘individual’ enlightenment through ignorance, isolation and exclusion reduces anything more than the appearance of suffering in relation to the ‘individual’, who then effectively ceases to exist.

It's no surprise you don't see anything more, because from a perspective like yours, there's nothing to see.

By inventing one's own definitions of terms one runs the risk of ending up with an internally inconsistent, incoherent mess of claims.

We are all blind until the moment we attain enlightenment

Really? What is the foundation for this claim of yours?

at which point we are no longer in a position to lead. This is the dilemma we face.

This is probably a dilemma for you, given what you said earlier.

If we count it as living together without exploiting one by burdening them, perhaps it can. I am not optimistic about my project either. All I have is antinatalism as a post-facto action. The whole, "do something while we live part" is not something I am sure will be of much difference. I just proposed something for those who say, "what besides antinatalism as a result?". To be charitable to my own proposal though I can try to outline a few things that can "make a difference" if that really means much in this inescapable situation:

1) Try burdening people with less. Just as we were burdened with the dissatisfaction-overcoming of being born at all, perhaps we can try to not put too many burdens on others.. Too many demands. Too many ultimatums.. Too many musts.. Of course this is never unavoidable with the Game (lest death) so it is only to lessen, it can never be to make go away completely all demands on others, obviously.

2) Try using humor, especially shared cynical humor when doing tasks that are unpleasant.. Like making the unpleasant task known as a shared hatred amongst peers that must deal with the task.

3) Try to tread lightly.. don't be aggressive with others, dominant, etc. This is what got us here in the first place.. people aggressively pursuing their agenda.

4) Shared consolation of suffering.. complain and listen to others complaints. Be sympathetic to them and perhaps feel a sense of community in sharing the burdens and the dissatisfaction-overcoming process. — schopenhauer1

This sounds like a modernized Western rendition of Jainism. Or Quietism. Both are pernicious.

But the problem is having the problem to overcome in the first place. It is this moral disqualification of being presented with problems to overcome in the first place, that I will never let go. You can play pretend all you want that self is an illusion. Pretend at being some Eastern sage. But the reality is it is the individual dealing with these things. You can try to twist the logic in wordplay but that’s it. Whether you say it is an illusion matters not because there is still the first person protagonist getting suffocated. The obvious fact that we have to work together to solve problems doesn’t make the individual self disappear either, nor does it negate the fact that the problem existed the first place to be overcome. This misguided notion is that overcoming itself means is good when in fact it’s just the opposite. It’s people being forced to face overcoming dissatisfaction. — schopenhauer1

The Early Buddhists would probably say that this is where the existentialist insight ends, and falls short.

1. The planet and its plants and animals don't exist for humans to eat it up.

2. If one eats solely for the purpose of living, one might as well eat cardboard. Or soylent green.

A great economic war will be waged in the long run against everyone but the elite in the future...... and actual wars too, for the great reset ? — Eskander

Better to choose poverty before being forced into it.

Having some power mightn't be enough. To have enough power to be completely free from any kind of threat is rare. Even in a hypothetical situation where one has that kind of power, they may still want to be liked, to maintain relationships, to continue to access certain privileges, and are thus still unwilling to bear the possible consequences of their actions. It is still a calculation, there are other factors to consider than just what goes in one's own head.

Can we really say that humans are essentially good and merely possess the possibility of being tempted by power? That their previously moral nature can sometimes just unravel? I don't think so. We are forced by our circumstances to pick between mutually exclusive desires and power can enable a person to bypass being forced to choose self-preservation against threats they've gained immunity from. You can't see where a bird would fly until you've released it from its cage. — Judaka

Attaining a position of power shows what a person is really like. Power doesn't corrupt, it reveals.

Having some power mightn't be enough. To have enough power to be completely free from any kind of threat is rare. — Judaka

The existence of nematodes provides some consolation. Seriously. They are the real rulers of the world. Everyone is subject to them. Imagine, for example, a murderous dictator with some worms in his lungs. He's instantly less frightening.

People, however, can be able to understand what is going on, even if just a few can really recognize it for what it is. — schopenhauer1

Or simply overpower others. Understanding what is going on is overrated, for the most part.

You'd need to show that understanding really does make a difference, a relevant difference.

Too bad that in my question you don't recognize Joseph Campbell's question. He wondered how it is that one can tell whether one has indeed had a religious/spiritual experience, or whether the feel good feeling one has is simply due to having had a good meal.
— baker

But this just begs the question: what does having a good mel have to do with the qualitative nature of experience? Certainly there can be a causal relation between the two, but this says nothing about WHAT the experience IS. Looks as if you are looking some kind of reduction of experience to physical brains states, such that a brain chemistry's analysis can yield up what an experience IS. This is obviously not true; the worst kind of question begging: how does one know what brain chemistry is? Why, through brain chemistry!? — Constance

No such reductionism. Again:
You find yourself feeling good, hopeful, life seems meaningful. Question: Is this feeling because you just had a good meal, or is it evidence of your spiritual attainment?

One thing Witt did was he took value off the table for discussion by claiming to be transcendental and unspeakable. This gave analytic philosophers the license to ignore THE most salient feature of our existence: affectivity. The meaning of life is not about facts; it is about the depth and breadth of affectivity.
/.../
Heuristics! That is all this is. Sitting under that fig tree is not at all about the four noble truths.

You're giving up on analytical thinking before it has had the chance to bear fruit.

Forced Agenda we all have to play. — schopenhauer1

Life in this world is about dominance.
Antinatalists are simply losers, weaklings.

There is standard Buddhist doctrine.