Otherwise your post is so confused I wouldn't know where to start. — jamalrob

If you're done throwing a tantrum? How do you expect to have a discussion if you ridicule another person's positions or continually judge their positions. It's isn't a schoolyard where whoever shouts the loudest is the one people listen to. It's too easy to simply dismiss it and say it's confused.

What exactly is confused about my post?

Frankly Benkei, this is rancid. I mentioned "secular values, freedom for women, reason and the diversity of cultural heritage, democracy, dissent, and religious difference". Are you suggesting that these are just our values? — jamalrob

I'm not just suggesting it. I'm telling you that these are most certainly very particular to our tradition and culture and therefore not necessarily shared. Ask people in former colonies what exactly "democracy" has brought them. Not much if not most of the things they hate and blame on the West.

This reveals, more than anything I have said, a patronizing and essentializing "us and them" attitude to people in the Middle East.

If you say so. I wasn't aware this thread is now about my character while you continually dodge one simple question. What is the problem.

Are Kurdish women equal to men because this was imposed on them by the West?

I think they are. I wouldn't claim to know what that means in their culture though nor whether they aspire to "Western" equality in the first place.

Did the Iranian people build an innovative pop and funk scene in the 1970s because they were agents of Western Imperialism? Did the people in Tahrir square demonstrate in favour of democracy because they were told to do it by the CIA? Are the women in the Middle East who bravely campaign for women's rights merely imposing an alien culture on a naturally barbaric people? Have Shias and Sunnis lived in peace together for many decades in many places only because they were brainwashed by Americans?

Pffff... this is rather laughable. There's a difference between people taking away from other cultures what they like and making it their own and propping up or installing dictators to enforce Western style capitalism. Or to replace traditional processes with Western-style democracies and institutions (Afghanistan and Iraq, most former colonies) when it clearly doesn't work.

I did not call those values Western.

Having studied international law it's quite clear where these values came from. Apparently, you just bought "universal rights" hook, line and sinker.

You did, and that two-faced imperialism underlies everything you say. They are values that are up for grabs for anyone who wants to grab them, and people around the world have grabbed them and continue to want them. They are universal.

Please continue with the judgments; makes this discussion so much more interesting to me. These values are not universal. They're a fucking luxury. Take a look around you in the world if you will. I wish they were universal. And it's very Western of you to think they are universal or that they should be so.

Has it ever occured to you that some people just might come to a different hierarchy of values and rights than we did in the West and still consider the end result just? It's not set in stone and just the shift in how rights are recognised, which trump which, in the past 60 years in the West itself should have informed you of this.

Finally, what is the problem according to you? You still haven't answered.

PS: I agree, by the way, I'm not very consistent when I on the one hand want to dismiss the us-them dichotomy (I don't think it's helpful) and on the other hand find myself forced to use it to make certain points clear.

I'll take that as a "no", at least to the first question. — jamalrob

I did read it, I just don't find it very interesting or very relevant to the Paris attacks.

The problem is that there is a bunch of dicks with power and territory who plan to kill millions of people in the Middle East and destroy any traces there of secular values, freedom for women, reason and the diversity of cultural heritage, democracy, dissent, and religious difference, and who are sometimes willing to take that war overseas, making this not just a problem for the Middle East. If people in the West, who benefit from the freedoms that ISIS is trying to eradicate, do not show solidarity with those in the Middle East who are fighting them, then they are morally bankrupt. — jamalrob

You're privy to their plans? You know what they want to accomplish? Do you believe they directed the attacks in Paris?

I don't know their plans. I suspect they'd be happy to hold and control and set up a Caliphate and there might or might not be an affiliation with IS. Suffice is to say that the attackers have been living in France or Belgium for quite some time, some of them have travelled to Syria to fight - which means they were radicalised in France well before getting into contact with IS - others never did travel there.

In other words, I think you're grossly overestimating IS and their influence on radicalisation but I do think there is rather broad support for their ideas and broadening as a consequence of our recent actions.

Also, the "Western man's burden" apparently is to show solidarity with people by bombing the shit out of their countries. You're under this naïve romantic notion that war can be clean. That we can "take their territory" in a vacuum where ordinary people don't suffer. You apparently lack the imagination as I wouldn't wish the reality on you by saying you should experience it.

I'm not even certain they want our support. You blindly assume that Western values are wanted there. There are more ways to social justice than Western democracy and imposing Western-style institutions. Imposing our values, our narrative of modernity isn't working and we need to open ourselves up to solutions that are specific to the area. Whatever intervention on our side, even if it were successful in eliminating IS, would be oppression in itself and therefore not solve the underlying problem.

So again, what do you see as the problem? I want you to spell it out.

This thread is about the Paris attacks.

All of a sudden it's about IS, hence, what is the problem you believe requires a solution?

Yes, that article was an education for me too. It casts doubt on the oft-heard opinion, expressed already in this thread, that military action is useless because the ISIS fighters will just melt away into obscurity for a while to bide their time, i.e. that ISIS is just like al-Qaeda. If Wood is right, everything hinges on their holding of territory. And that is something that can be taken from them. — jamalrob

Please define what you see as the problem? Is it terrorist attacks here, in the West? If so, then what should we care about IS holding territory in the ME? The Taliban wasn't much better (if at all) and they never attacked the West. So why is IS different?

What makes you think that defeating IS solves this problem and doesn't exacerbate it? How much worse do things actually have to get before it's clear that military intervention so far has only gotten us more problems - aside from a refugee stream we're going to have a hell of a time to accomodate in Europe?

Radicalisation of our youth isn't just caused because IS exists and it isn't caused by the simple existence of morbid interpretations of Islam. To draw an analogy, anti-semitism existed well before Hitler, it wasn't exactly a novel idea. It took additional circumstances to make a society turn on an ethnic/religious group just as that it requires more than just ideas to radicalise people.

It wasn't IS that attacked us but our own.

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?

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?

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

First off, I'm not a Stoic but I do borrow from them. My take on stoicism (but really, Ciceronianus is the expert on this, you should ask him to reply to this thread) in regards your questions is as follows:

1. No, I would say Stoicism is purely pragmatic so it won't have much to say about existential issues. If it isn't within your ability to control, you let it go. Part of these existential questions can therefore be ignored as arising from a wish to control what cannot be controlled to meet a certain ideal. You either let go of the wish (emotion) or the ideal - the latter appears a more humane answer to existential issues - which is where my earlier comment came from.

2. As far as I know Stoicism has not made an ethical judgment on existence. It does recognise the existence of suffering of course.

3. I don't think the Philosophical Pessimist solves life's sufferings except for the compassionate agent. The rest are trying to retreat from it through ascetism or art and the antinatalist wants to end life altogether.

The compassionate agent though, can be exactly like a Stoic (as I see him), having established suffering exists he goes out to alleviate it by his own power.

Let me just start by copying what I said when Charlie Hebdo happened because it's again relevant:

Let's put this in some historical perspective to really see what all this "emotion" is getting us... The backdrop is a lot of Western intervention in ME since around 1900 (not wanting to drag the Crusades into this) consisting of: direct and indirect support for oppressive regimes and attempts to overthrow other regimes we don't like, many conflicts in the area and harsh sanction against several nations in the area that are predominantly Muslim.

Considering the backdrop it's not entirely unlikely that some people from that region will blame the West and wish to harm it. This happens rather spectacularly on 9/11. Spectacularly but ineffectually, less than 3,000 US citizens are killed and two very large, symbolic buildings are destroyed. Two other planes crash killing their passengers but otherwise ineffectively. These men are not affiliated to any country. The hijackers are mostly from Saudi-Arabia, two are from United Arab Emirates, 1 from Egypt and 1 from Lebanon. Saudi-Arabia is a long standing "ally" from the US. They happen to be Muslim. Did they attack because they were Muslim and hate our freedoms or is it more complicated than that, given the backdrop?

Probably the latter but hey, we need a soundbite. An attack on our freedoms it is. Somehow the nuance gets lost that this was a fringe movement, Al-Qaeda not consisting of more than 1,000 persons. Suddenly Sikhs (not Muslims) must fear for their lives across the West because they wear turbans, along with Muslims in general. Such a wonderful job the governments and media did back then. Racism the likes of which we haven't seen since the Nazis runs rampant throughout Europe and the US (probably Canada and Australia too). All Muslims raus! Hooray!

As a result, the US picks up suspects outside of the rule of law, tortures them and gets fales intel that Iraq was involved. the US goes to the UN and doesn't get the support it needs and therefore goes at it outside of the legal framework with support from the UK. A grave blow to both the US legal system and an undermining of the shaky international legal order - although I'll grant not everyone believes the latter is a bad thing. Along the way though I noticed a steep decline in my privacy rights as an EU citizen, which is ten times worse in the US.

The US and the UK governments, despite majority opposition from their own constituency because of the common-sense that Iraq couldn't have anything to do with it, attack Iraq.

The biggest irony of course is that the invasion and occupation of Iraq has cost more US soldiers' lives than that were lost on 9/11. The economic cost is absolutely staggering in comparison to the material damage of 9/11. Oh yeah, before I forget, it also violently killed at least 100,000 Iraqis and due to the disintegration of health care and infrastructure, the knock-on effect is estimated at an additional 1,5 million deaths. But who cares about a bunch of sand niggers right? I mean, it's really far away!

So, please, can someone walk me through the rationale behind this all please because I'm not seeing it.

And if we're not careful, and listen to the stupid little people claiming it is all about Islam it indeed will be all about Islam eventually - as a self-fulfilling prophecy. If we continue to treat that religion as the cause of everything we perceive as evil then it will become true. Many people already treat Muslims as enemies; if enough people do that they will become the enemy. So my questions in the earlier posts are to show the other side of the coin.

[..] from where I'm standing it's extremists all around, the same hate, the same stupidity, the same lack of empathy.

If it is so easy to explain why the West gives so much attention to the Paris attacks, then surely it shouldn't be too hard to understand why the attacks happened? We are reaping what we sow, what we've been sowing for a century. At the personal level I can feel sorry for these victims but at a much larger scale I see the West as carrying the most blame.

Not only the century of oppression and intervention that created the conditions that gave rise to militant extremists, but in particular because it was the West that escalated what were attacks from a fringe movement into a full blown war against a country. That it so cavalierly decided on the fate of millions of people. If 9/11 was indiscriminate killing then we need a new word for the attack on Iraq because "more indiscriminate" doesn't exactly cover it. I could go on and on about how we've cajoled, threatened, intervened, attacked and manipulated in that region well before 9/11 and for the life of me, I cannot make a list of Muslims or ME-countries, whether individually or organized, having done the same thing. — Benkei

To this recent attack. I'm one of those "pansy liberals" who thinks the only good reaction to what happend in Paris is absolutely no reaction. Society should get on with life. The government can make a statement that - like any other criminals - they will do their best to catch them and bring them to justice in front of court. Every time the social conclusion (by which I mean, that which is put into effect by government, media and public support) is that this is "special", requiring a military reaction, requiring a hollowing out of our rights through increased surveillance or limiting our freedom of movement. These terrorists are winning little by little. We let them disrupt our societies and by doing so it disintegrates piece by piece.

We already see that Muslims living in Western countries feel more loyalty towards people thousands of miles away then their neighbours and countrymen. This process of radicalisation is the most threatening to our society because if we do not prevent it, we can barely stop it - attacks can come from any where at any time. Luckily, a lot of research has been done and it has shown that ideology alone does not guarantee radicalisation; that means that whatever people believe it doesn't mean that has to result in violent action.

I'll reiterate what I've said time and again; Islam is not the problem but Islamic-inspired terrorism is an accident to the geopolitical tensions existing in this world. Anti-western sentiment is not limited to Islamic countries, it's pretty much relevant, and in many cases prevalent, everywhere but in the West. The West is trying to impose its values, its narrative and its history on the rest of the world.

And no, that's not an apology for violence by terrorists but if you don't get that it is a reason for them, then you cannot engage the underlying consequences because in the end, terrorism is a symptom.

The most pathetic, neo-colonial claims in this respect are those claiming Islam should have an "Enlightenment", which really is just another way of saying Islamic countries must "get with the program and share our values". Well, the fact is they don't have to share those. And it's not as if "Christianity" had an "Enlightenment" either and equating Islam with culture is just emblematic of not having a clue. If Islam really was such a problem, we would've seen violence by "them" on "us" much sooner.

I urge everyone to read this a large part of the world hates us (use google translate)

Now as to the OP.

In your estimation:

Is it theoretically possible (I don't personally have the technique) to identify, infiltrate, and disrupt cells that plan and execute terrorist attacks?

[It seems to me the best bet, but is it possible?] — Bitter Crank

It is done and some cells are rounded up but it's not 100% effective. Like any other criminal organisation, you cannot think to stop every illegal activity. We have to live with a certain amount of insecurity or submit to a police state.

Is there an acceptable defense that can stand at the ready?

[This would probably require an onerous, burdensome, and inconvenient public deployment of a large military presence. The benefits might very well be nil.]

I would think efforts would be misguided here in the larger context that I don't believe terrorism is the main problem but a result of international politics and social changes in our own countries.

Is there an acceptable social strategy for France to become less of a target?

[France must not cease being France. No nation should redecorate in order to make terrorists happy.]

Yes. Don't get fucking involved in military interventions abroad on the basis of being allied with one country and not the other but make a sincere judgment each and every time the question comes up. It's valid to say "no" to your allies if you don't believe their cause is just.

Internally, politicians and media have to reevaluate how they address this problem. It has to move away from an "us" versus "them" and away from a military interpretation of this conflict. It has to offer Muslims a narrative that they can be vocal and critical of France's values and empower them to embrace non-violent solutions to their real and/or perceived problems.

Is there an acceptable social strategy for France (or Japan or Luxembourg, or Russia, or Peru...) to become less of a target? Who in the world of Islam lends the most support to terrorism, directly and indirectly--Iran or Saudi Arabia? My guess is that it our ally and not our nemesis. Is it Wahhabism that underlies the most radical versions of Islam? (The Saudis certainly have the most money...)

Wahhabism and other interpretations of Islam have existed for some time. It's relatively recent that this has led to violent action and therefore not the only cause. It's definitely a contributory factor because of the harsh condemnation of Western values.

Hmmm... I used Pneumenon's link. I'll check it out manually then...

Edit: I get even less.

AK-47 for 29.

Zeus for 27.

naked for 22.

My argument is more or less that the function of victory is not a single variable function where the input of said function is the technological ability to to kill.

I have two lovely books, if that be our preference, titled "150 questions for a Guerrilla", where a General Alberto Bayo -- who helped train Che, though I'm ignorant on the specifics of that -- lays out some basics of Guerrilla warfare for a rank-and-filer, and "FM 31-21" -- an old field manual written by the Army on how to conduct and support (and therefore reverse engineered to combat) guerrilla warfare. Not that this guarantees any sort of victory. But it shows that I'm at least not alone in the opinion that military victory is not solely a function of technological capacity to kill.

Is this what we are disagreeing over? Or are we just disagreeing over the particular example I used? — Moliere

Of course there are many other factors involved but "all things being equal", the more technologically advanced party will win from the other. The problem with the examples given is that the conditions for victory were totally unrealistic. If you want to control a country, you need to hold it. If you want to hold it, you need boots on the ground. Whatever much guerrilla warfare did accomplish in Iraq, it already went wrong because not nearly enough people were committed to holding Iraq.

And in all honesty, I don't think the US can field enough soldiers to occupy it precisely because of the decentralised cultural heritage of the area and the geographic distance between the US and Iraq.

Tactically, guerrilla warfare is difficult to fight against, especially if your condition of victory (strategy) is occupation. If you do want to occupy an area that isn't a nation state (and even then you can screw it up), the concept of timescale would have to radically alter (decades instead of years) and you need to fight for it inch-for-inch, take and hold, and not think you can get it all in one fell swoop by toppling the leaders and occupying a few large cities.

When Reagan got in the driver's seat, it all went to shit and never recovered.

I told you back in the days of Saddam Hussein, that the NEXT skirmish that breaks out, the USA will not respond to. That we have had enough and need to pick up our marbles and go home. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

That doesn't make sense. You started that "skirmish". Or war, as some people fondly refer to it.

You click on the first link that goes to another article. — jamalrob

Awww, shiiittttt. Stop making up rules!

That doesn't disprove my point. It does illustrate, in my view, the ludicrous idea that you can hold an entire country with 192,000 US soldiers.

192,000 US soldiers would probably be enough to secure Baghdad and some 500 sq. km around it and not much else.

You'll note, that back in the day when people still stole land from each other through war, conquering an entire nation was rather rare, especially on the time scales we're considering here. It's only with the advent of the nation state, that through capitulation this has changed. Now, if you're dealing with a tribal society, that has no allegiance to a central government, the idea of "conquering and holding" Iraq was laughable really. Same with Afghanistan. You can get a few tribes and their territory under your bootheel and that's it.

I thought the rule was nothing in "parentheses" and nothing in "italics". First one then seems to be "many other names"? What's the first link you use on the "feces" page then?

You need actual presence to hold land. The US doesn't commit enough personnel for that.

"Feces" loops back on itself I think.

Little Miss V.



Tommie. Our new cat.



The boss and vice president.



Tout. L'autre chat.

You're right, blame it on Benkei, I just followed his lead. :-}
Just goes to show that you should never believe the things you see on the internet without checking it out first.
So school runs out to 8 clicks. — Sir2u

Lol, woops. Apparently I had linked through "quality" before via "consciousness" which made it darker and I couldn't see the difference with regular black text any more.

19 for "contract".

Infinte for "conscious" and "aware" because they loop back on themselves.

One of the reasons that many American's own firearms is to defend themselves against the very government that would feel entitled to such a confiscation. In a much older thread at another place, I asked whom around the world, would believe an American's plea for help, if our government turned on US, it's citizens AND help. The answer to my question was stunning as the ONLY forum member, in a sea of represented countries, that said would help was from Canada (maybe ssu, I would have to look back) and that was in the form of medical support and maybe refuge for American's wanting to flee the USA. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

What exactly are you going to do with your handguns and assault rifles against tanks and planes of the army? I don't think guns will make a difference if the army decides to back the government.

What you need is a country where people feel comfortable ignoring orders. That way your soldiers won't ever turn against you because they're your brothers, sisters, fathers and mothers. Independent and autonomous people require something else than what the army instills in them though.

Scary freakin scenario for sure, when your government has been "helping" other countries the world over and NO one would come over to help the USA citizens fight it's own government. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

Your government hasn't helped anyone except itself. You're not spending trillions of dollars in weaponry to help anyone because all that buys you is death.

Added to this is the transitory, instrumental nature of our desires when we are satisfied with attaining desires and goals. I think Stoicism has some parallels with Buddhism and Schopenhauer's asceticism in that being indifferent is a starting path to "denying" the Will. — schopenhauer1

Interesting difference of interpretation. ;)

I didn't see Stoicism as denying Will or flux, because that's undeniably there. To me it's letting go of absolute ideals, not having idealistic expectations about the fluctuating world around us. Otherwise we'd be continuously confronted with the fact we can't change the world to that extent (and therefore be disappointed) and that would lead to continuous restlessness. If you don't have those expectations - speaking from experience - it's pretty quiet inside your head.

I'm glad no one was hurt! Oddly enough, I knew someone who got into an accident under the exact same circumstances; he was adjusting his daughter's car seat and got into a crash. Anyways, I see what you're saying by motivation. However, I think there is a common and philosophical version of pessimism. Pessimism, as you just used it is kind of its usage in everyday language for seeing the glass "half empty". The combination of optimism and pessimism might be, "hope for the best, expect the worst". The philosophical version of pessimism is more of an aesthetic idea that life is some sort of burden and that the flux of becoming is as a whole is not something to embrace. — schopenhauer1

I agree and I didn't mean to conflate the two. I understood Thorongil's reference to "predispositions" as having a preference for either type of the psychological versions of pessimism and optimism but perhaps I misunderstood. How do you think the psychological meaning of pessimism/optimism are different from predispositions?

I also agree that flux as a whole isn't something to embrace, we (can) embrace the good, fight the bad, if possible, and at worst accept it. And if suffering is really constant and unbearable with no chance of it getting better then we can always get out.

Interestingly enough, speaking of Plato, reminded me that he quite easily accepted (more or less as a given) that the ideal was not attainable. In his Politea he didn't argue for the ideal polis but best (ariste poleis).

Who needs progress?

TPF already is something different, something BETTER, with you back on the boards! 8-) — ArguingWAristotleTiff

Thanks. We'll see how long that lasts. Busy life nowadays. O:)

@ArguingWAristotleTiff

I was actually hoping for something different...

Yes, it does makes sense. I see your argument. I am not going to do the same old arguments by trying to refute it (not yet anyways), so I am going to do a more inquiry based approach. Why do you think Schopenhauer appreciated static rather than flux? I know one can point to Vedic and Buddhist influences for sure, but I think one can easily look to the Western tradition of thought as well. Neoplatonic and Gnostic thought comes to mind regarding the One or wholeness which has been shattered by space-time. Schopenhauer gives this monism a Kantian flavor by giving reality a polar structure, one in which there is a noumenal aspect (which is "flux-proper") and one which is shattered into individuation by space-time (which is flux-as-mediated-by-space-time-and-causation). One can't help but see parallels with Gnosticism whereby the perfect One is somehow disturbed and by various processes of breaking apart, the physical world of space-time is created (albeit explained through mythological analogy).

Expanding more on this "static" and "flux" terminology (which I think is an interesting one, and thus I am going with it), I would say that antinatalism definitely seems to retain this Gnostic aesthetic. Being not born, though strictly speaking is a "nothingness" (which itself is not accurate because there is no "is" with nothingness- but you get the picture) and the idea of nothingness can be seen as pure being (ironically..I know, since nothingness is pure non-being, but you get what I am saying). The idea of being born is seen as flux or a "disturbance" of the static, if you will. Thus, the "becoming" (and always lacking) aspect of life. This could be a matter of differences in aesthetic attitudes towards life. Perhaps it is temperament (this thread, to Thorongil's credit started as a discussion of temperament). Perhaps it is an ability to step back and see life as a whole rather than in particular events. Perhaps certain people with a propensity for aesthetic synthesis and existential reflection may come to these type of ideas. Certainly there are themes for people who do seem to reflect on existence itself (positive existentialists or otherwise). These themes surround ideas of things like boredom, angst, suffering, choice, and meaning. So, I don't think Schopenhauer is far off from many subsequent (and prior) philosophers in existential issues. In fact, I think he anticipated a lot of modern attitudes towards existential thought more than any other major thinker of his time period who tended to focus more on purely metaphysical abstractions, political theory, and logico-mathematical writing (with some exceptions like Kierkegaard). — schopenhauer1

Nice post!

I don't necessarily think Schopenhauer appreciated static above flux - I haven't read him directly (only second-hand sources) to venture an actual judgment in that respect. That said, it does seem he did have some sort of an ideal on the basis of which he found existence lacking. At least, that's the conclusion at this time that seems logical to me - his judgment appears to be of existence held against that static ideal.

Why this conclusion seems logical to me is that when we accept life as a "becoming", in flux, then the ideal is not part of existence because it is static. It would be a metaphysical construct. All instances of existence, existence in its totality, don't measure up to that ideal. In my view such a comparison would not be fair.

As a metaphor, imagine the painter who has a perfect image in his mind. He paints and paints, each painting never reflecting that image he has and discards them as worthless. Yet to a casual observer some paintings are still masterpieces. The created instances are worthwhile in and of themselves and as a casual observer I can say "that picture is better than this one" but the image inside the painter's mind is unknownable to the casual observer.

So we can compare individual existences, possible existences, past existences or current existences (and their directions) but not to this unknown ideal. We could construct our own ideal, of course, and then find that all individual, possible, past and current existences will be found lacking. Which is why I don't hold an idea of the ideal in this respect. Which in a sense is what, for instance, Stoicism is about in my view, I can't control my existence to such an extent that any ideal is ever attainable because existence is flux so I let go of (absolute) ideals.

So I think the main difference between our viewpoints boils down to what we do with "being" in our philosophy. I more or less state it doesn't have a place because it isn't part of existence (purely mental). You accept it as being there (excuse the pun) and from it, it necessarily follows this world of flux is lacking. Is that a fair approximation?

And if it is, don't you think it's wildly interesting that something that seems so minor has such major implications in our everyday behaviour?

As to predispositions. I think people have a preferred view point but believe both optimism and pessimism are psychologically motivators used alternatively (or simultaneously) by most.

For instance, I had a car accident yesterday. Nobody got hurt, thank god. I was relieved everyone was ok, a bit bummed it will cost me a half month of salary in damages and mostly angry with myself for the mistake last night: I let myself be distracted due to the car seat for the baby not being fastened correctly by my father-in-law (with baby present, eeek!). It could've been worse (optimism), it would've been better if it hadn't happened (pessimism). Both predispositions exist, one allows me not to beat myself up too much and motivates me to carry on and get into that car again right after the accident "shit happens" and the other motivates me to be more careful next time "don't be an ass".

PS: baby thought it was funny.

PPS: I unfortunately don't have time for more for awhile. :(

I think steady-state economics doesn't even stop economic growth; it would stop economic growth based on increased resource consumption. There's still room for better recycling (increased resources without diminishing reserves), increased efficiency in production (less use of resources) and higher quality (longer lasting, making the cycle of resource use longer).

PS: I trust you realised this was tongue in cheek!

PS: I'm sorry you're such a one-dimensional character that the only things that motivates you is the "lack" of things. — Benkei

I'm convinced that isn't the case.

I think the quoted remark works either way. — schopenhauer1

Certainly not in the context it was written...

If the point of carrying out life is to make meaning through living, as you indicated, or if it the summum bonum of intrinsic goods to be alive, and thus why life life should be carried out, then the question still stands: "Why does someone need to go through this in the first place in a world that has inevitable suffering? Why must this "giving meaning" be carried out without devolving into circular logic?"

That's not the point and you know I already stated as much when I said "my life [...] is intrinsically meaningless". So the question doesn't stand.

Read the following not as a point to argue but as a possible glimpse in how my thoughts work:

I take joy in the fact that I can give meaning and now that I am alive I do find meaning - not in life itself - but what my particular life contains (the summum of my relations to the world). My life isn't meaningful, but my relationship to my daughter is. As it is to you via this forum or to my grand piano. There are obvious degrees in importance there but you get the picture.

I also consider this "giving meaning" a very creative force that only sentience has made possible. We're the only beings that can articulate meaning out of nothing. Where there was no meaning - poof - there's a chair, and a table, and a cat on a mat and a brain in a VAT. "Awesome" doesn't do that possibility justice. The knowledge we have developed through giving the world around us meaning is to me the greatest observable miracle in the world - that despite our total insignificance in this universe and the meaningless of it all, we have a reasonable control over our direct surroundings as a consequence of that knowledge.

It's therefore not that I "must" give meaning (I'm sure most people don't care) or that it justifies whatever suffering there is. It's that despite suffering life is just a lot of fun and in any case not something I can judge based solely on my experience of it - that would be hubris. I can only tell you what it means to me.

As it is, I don't care about most of the things Schopenhauer considers suffering. Restlessness is temporary, as is everything. The "perfect state", the life Schopenhauer would consider acceptable, is a state of being (static) that isn't of a world that is always becoming (flux). So if I stop comparing between "being" and "becoming" because of a rejection of "being" a judgment of "becoming" is no longer possible (at least, not in any absolute sense).

Does that make sense to you? You don't have to agree to it, it only has to make sense.

Life isn't bad at all. Boredom is about as bad as it gets for me. :P

There's no point to philosophy other than what meaning I attribute to it. Sometimes that's just relieving boredom, sometimes because I doubt ideas I have or discover they're inconsistent and want to resolve that, sometimes I just want to learn something because a particular subject interests me.

As I get older though, more and more subjects bore me as they are usually more of the same without a real resolution. Practical philosophy like ethics and political philosophy continue to interest me the most as I've grown more attached to life and how to live it properly. This is opposed to my past interest in metaphysics, where I used to have a lot of fun with metaphysics.

And mustn't forget logic. If you don't know the basics of logic you can't reach any meaningful conclusions about anything as you'll most likely made a mistake somewhere.

You can look at it a number of ways and still come up with the conclusion I gave earlier. Assuming for a moment that the Will is endless, your example just reiterates the lack that pervades our motivations. If, let's say basic drives and boredom are very much at the base of these motivations, the myriad of goals and desires we have are thus not that complicated to see always arising. First the need for companionship and to be loved, then the need for cuddles. But it is never satisfied and if or when it is denied can become a source of further distress. Post facto excuses that the distress and the initial lack are "good for you" seem suspect as a way to justify inevitable pain and want in a life, but not facing the problem directly. — schopenhauer1

No I can't come up with the conclusion you gave earlier because it requires me to tortuously rationalise my actions in a manner that is simply an incorrect representations of my actual motivations. But ok. I guess I'm not seeing things how they "really" are. :B

PS: I'm sorry you're such a one-dimensional character that the only things that motivates you is the "lack" of things.

So there is your "x" telos, "Through living we come to mean something and give some things meaning". Now, you are justifying the inevitable harm of life by saying that a person can make their own meaning and give meaning to things. Now you must explain why someone needs to go through this in the first place in a world that has inevitable suffering? Why must this "giving meaning" be carried out without devolving into circular logic? — schopenhauer1

If that's your interpretation then you don't understand what teleology is. It's not a goal or purpose of life, it's the natural consequence of living as a human.

It's also a gross misrepresentation of my remarks (as other paragraphs show). As I stated before, I'm not interested in being convinced or trying to convince as it is futile. I was hoping to create understanding but that requires you to read compassionately.

I think they integrate in the idea of existential angst. While Benatar is more of a classic utilitarian, Schopenhauer believes that life is necessarily a restless Will. However, part of what one can take into the utilitarian calculus is restless Will. — schopenhauer1

The moral judgment of Schopenhauer is "life isn't worth living", which you take into account when making a utilitarian judgment that "life isn't worth living" (I paraphrase). That doesn't seem entirely the right thing to do for several reasons. The most obvious to me is that Schopenhauer's conclusion should not be part of a utilitarian calculus because the utilitarian consequences of a moral judgment are nil.

Being that there is always a lack of "something" that motivates human behavior, every act that is trying to achieve a goal means something we didn't have to begin with. — schopenhauer1

This is simply not true. The presence of my wife, makes me want to cuddle. It's not the absence of a cuddle that makes me want to cuddle. If it's always a "lack" it would simply make that person profoundly self-absorbed. That's just one particular instance of a motivation but I think people are complex creatures that are motivated by a variety of things - a lack is only one of many possible motivations.

Only a living person can experience a lack of something by the way, so it's not a standard by which to judge life because it presupposes life.

The question stands therefore, by what standard do you find life wanting?

Nietzsche seems to claim that the suffering is itself a sort of meaning, but if suffering is viewed as something to avoid, this would be wrong — schopenhauer1

I do not see how that logically follows. If suffering is something to avoid then how could it not have meaning? If it does not have meaning, why avoid it?

I'm not a Nietzsche expert but as far as I'm aware Nietzsche rejects "being" and embraces "becoming". It's in that difference that his judgment of Schopenhauer enters. For, the disorder and suffering of a world of becoming can only be impugned in the context of an imagined world of being, but, if one truly affirms becoming, “one must admit nothing that has being…the better world, the true world…the thing-in-itself".

So perhaps a further study of Nietzsche and Montaigne would be of interest for you as neither of them reject pessimism but - in a way - take it a step further.

What you would have to justify is that a new individual "needs" to live life despite there being suffering. What "x" reason (aka mission/telos/intrinsic good) needs to be carried out by the an individual such that the suffering is justified? If you fill in the "x" reason/mission/intrinsic good, then this starts going down a slippery slope of individuals being beholden to some external principle and then this external principle has to be justified for why it needs to be carried out in the first place without being circular logic. — schopenhauer1

I don't need to justify suffering because it simply is there. I'd neither make the mistake of raising a single example to a standard, nor the reverse, to abstract away individual differences. That my life and that of my daughter are intrinsically meaningless is a given. Luckily, we are human beings and we can build the greatest edifice of meaning in our life time by entering into meaningful relations with the world around us.

Through living we come to mean something and give some things meaning.

Questions for schopenhauer1;

1. How do you integrate Benatar's "hedonistic calculus" with Schopenhauer's moralistic pessimism (e.g. a normative judgment on existence)?

2. By what standard do you (and Schopenhauer) find life wanting?

2. What makes you reject Nietzsche's Dionysian pessimism? From the standpoint of a Dionysian pessimist, existence is blameless, “one cannot judge, measure, compare the whole, to say nothing of denying it”.

3. Even Schopenhauer saw possibility for the aesthetic perceiver, the artist, the compassionate agent, and the ascetic saint to diminish suffering; why don't you entertain this option as a way out and is antinatalism the natural "consequence" for you?

Nietzsche is quite reproachful towards Schopenhauer and accuses him of lacking the philosophical strength to say "yes" to life. In the Gay Science he claims that Schopenhauer’s pessimism represents “an impoverishment of life”, the reaction of a suffering individual who takes “revenge on all things by…branding his image on them, the image of his torture”. I'll be frank in this respect as well; I find the continuous return by pessimists to discuss pessimism akin to TV evangelism: repetitive, futile and a little annoying - nobody who isn't already a pessimist is going to be convinced by it because it is an interpretation of the world incompatible with personal experience for most.

I would think far more interesting would be, instead of trying to convince one another of one thing or another, to understand what one or the other sees when looking at the world.

I disagree, by the way, with your assertion that any one would have to justify that a new individual needs to live. It's sufficient not to ascribe to Benatar's hedonistic calculus or Schopenhauer's pessimism, which I don't. It's only if we accept the premises of the pessimist that we have to play by those rules.

You can't throw around unnecessary expletives here either!

@Mayor of Simpleton It should be proportional to wealth and not income then. Just for you. I think I'll take one of your cats. You know. Hit them where it really hurts. >:)

Does anybody have contact with Kwalish Kid? I saw him on a forum but they're not letting me in because my e-mail address doesn't have an internet history and I even exchanged personalised e-mails with them. Weird. But happy I'm difficult to google just based on my e-mail address. :D

It was at the International Skeptics Forum.

This should attract a certain type of posters.

EDIT: what am I doing wrong with that picture?