As a matter of full disclosure, I practice a kind of faith. An important part of the "Lord's prayer" is where it prays one does not get tested too much. — Valentinus

Job was tested; but, was vindicated in the end. And what is unnecessary suffering? This is new to me.

This I agree with. — schopenhauer1

But, still, sometimes we are satisfied for longer periods of time or non-temporally. Such as reading a good poem and remembering it due to its significance. Or owning a place one can call "home".

I'm not sure what post you are addressing Valentinus?

I'm only generalizing for things which we want or need. People want various things for differing reasons. That I can be happy over owning a home or apartment is one thing. But, that doesn't apply to all people. Some people want different things. The inherent lack in life is (momentarily) satisfied by certain actions. Then we go back to needing things or boredom.

There's a lot of stuff to maintain that magic. I am guessing you don't rent or own your own place? — schopenhauer1

No, does that deny my logic?

Maintaining a homeostasis is just what we tend to do. It isn't just home though. It is the cost of keeping the home, the time spent maintaining the home, and the boredom felt if one does not find an activity of some engagement- something to go out and do so you can go home and rest. Again, the frantic survival, comfort, and entertainment needs. We cannot just be. — schopenhauer1

But, doesn't the joy of owning a home or apartment override such negativism's? To have a place you can call "home" is a magical experience.

To step back a bit. Go to an abandoned parking lot with one broken down car in it early in the morning. Then come back and look at that abandoned car in the evening. Nothing much has changed. That is more or less the world as it is. Our frantic wills, characterized by our survival needs/wants and inability to simply be, is what causes all the drama. That cannot be prevented though. Small insights like the parking lot example, may or dreams of utopia may be the only thing you have. — schopenhauer1

One always has a home, though, to park one's car. Isn't a "home" an important concept in our daily lives?

I mean to say that if all what is intelligible in life which are certain events and situations, then suffering, which stands out from such events and situations therefore makes life more meaningful. How can one know joy without sadness?

Interesting post. Therefore philosophical quietism?

See my reply to Valentinus.

I answered with a positive in terms of his premises but not conclusion. In other words what is there beyond certain events and situations. In my opinions they are what make life intelligible.

I thought you had the correct reasoning but wrong conclusion here.

Fascinating. Thanks.

Likewise.

Thanks!

Here's Schopenhauer on suicide in case anyone is wondering.

And, yeah, things are good on average. — macrosoft

:)

What are your thoughts about attitudes, @macrosoft? Can they be changed, and how?

An attitude is everything after all.

Oh, OK. Yes, it seems futile to try and escape death. I agree. And I'd say that impermanent satisfactions and contentments are all we have, but also they are enough (if we get enough of them.) — macrosoft

Let it come naturally, is what I think I'm trying to say.

Yeah, that too. Sometimes life can proceed smoothly and pleasurably for stretches at a time. Life does not have some big 'hole' in it. The world feels pretty good. All is well. — macrosoft

Ok, glad you're not suicidal. Joking aside, life is pretty good nowadays. We don't have to worry about being drafted in some war. We have most of our needs (apart from housing) readily supplied. Opportunities abound for a good life. We enjoy a great deal of freedom. I suppose, too much freedom to some extent.

I don't understand what you mean by the futility of death. — macrosoft

I mean, that it's unavoidable and always present. One cannot escape the confines of mortality. If one attempts for the greatest of goods, such as contentment and satisfaction, that's all that can be asked for in the end.

There's an old quote: people usually get what they want. As a rule-of-thumb (and allowing for time and chance), I think that's roughly true. — macrosoft

Or they become satisfied with what they have?

That's certainly a dilemma that one can face. I suppose I'd want to live forever. I can always choose to die if I wanted to; but, again that's futile. Schopenhauer and moreso Camus talked about the futility of death.

I'm no expert, but I have dabbled. I'd say that there is some truth to it and some mumbo-jumbo. — macrosoft

More truth than mumbo-jumbo, or otherwise?

Even crappy philosophers can be transformed into gold by the right kind of seriousness. — macrosoft

I think it's sincerity.

Traditions are nice, but show me the individual. — macrosoft

What do you mean?

If one adopts the Buddhist attitude, then suffering becomes something transformative. It makes suffering the primary goal of reduction. There becomes some truth to suffering having an inherent value, then. What do you think, macro?

If I use my imagination, I'd say that life without death would be very different. There would always be time to procrastinate. You could always go back to take the right path having at first taken the wrong path. In some ways it would be nice. But it would also reduce life to a flat kind of video game. Decisions would have no real weight. — macrosoft

Yes, this is the moral dilemma that the simulation hypothesis faces. It's a path that one can always take, but, would you be willing to forsake death, which is going to become a reality sooner or later?

So, what are your thought's about Buddhism, and the cessation of suffering? Is it all mumbo-jumbo or is there some truth to all of it?

Yes, this sounds like something Wittgenstein would say. I agree. What is life without death? Just something? Not really.

Understood. I was unsure what you meant by that analogy. But, thanks for clarifying.

I agree. And most people don't want to die, so much so that they will believe unlikely stories to fend off the notion of being erased as particular persons. My point would be that facing death 'forces' the lit candle to identify more with the flame than the wax. — macrosoft

Hmm. You drive a hard bargain. I'm a fan of logotherapy and have read Viktor Frankl's, Man's Sear for Meaning. We always have the chance to choose our attitudes; but, not circumstances towards death.

So, you're talking about death in general. One doesn't always have the opportunity to pick what circumstances they die under. Is that what you're talking about, the circumstances which one might be able to choose to die under?

What in me dies when I die? My particular memories? Yeah. But what was the best part of me all along? What it my little particular face? Was it my little habits?

Or was the virtue that lit up my life the same virtue that lit up other people's lives? Is essential virtue a flame that leaps from melting candle to melting candle? I'd say so. So death loses some of its sting as we sincerely find ourselves in the flame and not the candle. — macrosoft

Well, I can respect the desire for death in those who face gratuitous suffering. But, what is life without suffering? Again, where does one draw the line between merited suicide and unwarranted suicide?

I'm not thinking of suicide in the above quote. I'm talking about the things we die for and why. — macrosoft

I just fail to see the merit to martyrdom with suicide. Sure, people get remembered for it; but, so what?

Sure, and I'm a 'blue' guy in a 'blue' city. But as a philosopher, I don't take on the moral fads without criticism or reservation. [Which is not to say that you are and do, but only to clarify my position.] — macrosoft

What would Wittgenstein say about suicide? I know he was plagued by such thoughts as he was developing and in his life too. I see the committing of suicide as an act of rebellion against life. Same with abortion.

What is it that dies? Who is it that dies? And who is it that is died for? For whom does the soldier die? For whom or what did Socrates die? For whom or what do we die in lots of little ways when not completely? — macrosoft

A memory dies. That's unacceptable. But, true, people commit suicide, and then the world keeps on turning. It's just such a futile act though.

It's natural that a peaceful society wouldn't emphasize these old-fashioned notions much. But I suspect they would be back in a flash if things became universally dangerous again. — macrosoft

True, I meant to just highlight the fact that egalitarianism commands otherwise.

I think death connects to the small self as opposed to the big self, or the 'petty' self as opposed to the 'transcendent' self. — macrosoft

What do you mean by that?

The stoics are a good example. Suicide was appropriate in certain circumstances. In such circumstances, it was one more manly facing of death. — macrosoft

I don't think it's a matter of manliness as you portray it. After all, Stoicism appealed to women also.

Had Marcus Aurelius committed suicide, he would have been remembered as a proto-Jesus, above and beyond that of Socrates.

That's true to some degree. I mean how can one eliminate the subjectivity of suicide? The Stoics tried, to great success though.

Surprising. I usually think of profound as something like the opposite of mediocre. The profound is dark, hidden, esoteric. Or it is associated with 'limit' situations that we all face, the birth and death of loved ones, falling in love, conceptual revolutions with which we re-invent ourselves, etc. — macrosoft

Yes, the Stoics, would have advocated suicide in strict conditions. Such mandates were imposed to prevent the needless loss of life at your very own hands.