A Review and Critical Response to the Shortcomings of Popular Secularist Philosophies
In Western countries, Christian nationalism often seeks to impose pro-life policies, ban certain forms of sexual speech in public settings such as libraries and schools, promote Christian ethical teachings in educational curricula, and restrict access to certain websites. Similarly, Islamic nationalism enforces these and many more restrictions, often with even stricter adherence to religious doctrines.
Religionists argue that these restraints are necessary to prevent civilization from descending into decadence and excessive hedonism, where higher values are discarded in favor of simple pleasures. They believe that without these moral guidelines, society would lose its ethical foundation and succumb to chaos.
On the other hand, humanists, existentialists, and secularists who hold notions of "virtue" or "civic virtue" argue that Enlightenment values can temper the excesses of pure hedonism in a secularized society. They believe that reason, individual rights, and scientific inquiry provide a framework for a meaningful and virtuous life without the need for religious dogma.
The Role of Industrial/Post-Industrial Society
In modern industrial and post-industrial societies, economic and educational institutions can offer their own mechanisms for leading what has traditionally been considered a "meaningful" life. These settings provide opportunities for personal and intellectual growth, community engagement, and the pursuit of knowledge. However, whether these mechanisms are sufficient or need to be cultivated externally is a matter of debate.
Internal Mechanisms: Universities and workplaces can foster a sense of purpose through education, innovation, and the development of skills. They promote the idea that contributing to scientific and technological advancements, as well as participating in civic life, can provide meaning and fulfillment.
External Cultivation: Some argue that without a broader, external framework of meaningsuch as that provided by religionthese internal mechanisms might fall short. They suggest that human beings need a sense of being part of a larger cosmic scheme to find true fulfillment.
The Economy as a De Facto Religion
In the absence of religion, the industrialized economy can take on a quasi-religious role, providing structure and purpose through work, consumerism, and technological progress. However, this secular utility-maximizing approach often lacks the deep, existential meaning that religion offers.
Economic Instrumentalism: The focus on maximizing utility and fulfilling preferences can lead to a hollow existence, where actions are driven by the pursuit of pleasure or material success without a deeper sense of purpose. This instrumental approach is about "doing to do," a cycle of activity without an overarching meaning.
Humanist Pursuits: For humanists, meaning can come from scientific inquiry, the arts, and building technologically advanced societies. These pursuits aim to improve the human condition and advance knowledge, but they can still feel empty without a connection to something greater than individual or collective achievements.
Existentialist Perspective
Authenticity:
Embracing Freedom: Making choices free from societal constraints.
Conscious Decisions: Reflecting personal beliefs and desires in actions.
Responsibility: Owning the consequences of one's choices and life path.
However, the pursuit of authenticity in an indifferent world can become a circular and endless endeavor, leading to isolation, despair, and potential nihilism.
___________________________________________________
[b]Pessimism and Antinatalism: Addressing the Shortcomings of Secular Philosophies
Humanism[/b]
Humanism champions the pursuit of happiness, ethical living, and progress, with an optimistic belief in the potential for human improvement. Yet, it often glosses over the fundamental suffering that pervades life and the fleeting nature of pleasure. Pessimism, on the other hand, cuts through this idealism, recognizing that suffering is a constant part of existence. By acknowledging this harsh reality, pessimism offers a more grounded perspective that avoids the disillusionment that comes from chasing unattainable humanist ideals.
Economy as De Facto Religion
When the economy becomes a de facto religion, it offers a sense of purpose through work, consumerism, and progress, promising fulfillment through material success. However, this focus on utility often leads to a repetitive cycle of "doing to do," where the pursuit of work and consumption feels empty and devoid of deeper meaning. Pessimism highlights the hollowness of this approach, showing how it ultimately fails to address the root of human suffering. Antinatalism takes this critique further by suggesting that preventing new lives from entering this meaningless cycle is a compassionate choice.
Existentialism
Existentialism emphasizes the importance of personal freedom and authenticity in creating meaning. Yet, it struggles with the paradox of needing to be authentic while also grappling with the burden of crafting one's own purpose. This can lead to feelings of isolation and despair. Pessimism acknowledges these issues, accepting that the search for true authenticity might be an endless and unresolvable challenge. Antinatalism extends this idea by proposing that avoiding the creation of new liveswho would face this existential struggleis a more ethical approach.
Religionists argue that these restraints are necessary to prevent civilization from descending into decadence and excessive hedonism, where higher values are discarded in favor of simple pleasures. They believe that without these moral guidelines, society would lose its ethical foundation and succumb to chaos.
On the other hand, humanists, existentialists, and secularists who hold notions of "virtue" or "civic virtue" argue that Enlightenment values can temper the excesses of pure hedonism in a secularized society. They believe that reason, individual rights, and scientific inquiry provide a framework for a meaningful and virtuous life without the need for religious dogma.
The Role of Industrial/Post-Industrial Society
In modern industrial and post-industrial societies, economic and educational institutions can offer their own mechanisms for leading what has traditionally been considered a "meaningful" life. These settings provide opportunities for personal and intellectual growth, community engagement, and the pursuit of knowledge. However, whether these mechanisms are sufficient or need to be cultivated externally is a matter of debate.
Internal Mechanisms: Universities and workplaces can foster a sense of purpose through education, innovation, and the development of skills. They promote the idea that contributing to scientific and technological advancements, as well as participating in civic life, can provide meaning and fulfillment.
External Cultivation: Some argue that without a broader, external framework of meaningsuch as that provided by religionthese internal mechanisms might fall short. They suggest that human beings need a sense of being part of a larger cosmic scheme to find true fulfillment.
The Economy as a De Facto Religion
In the absence of religion, the industrialized economy can take on a quasi-religious role, providing structure and purpose through work, consumerism, and technological progress. However, this secular utility-maximizing approach often lacks the deep, existential meaning that religion offers.
Economic Instrumentalism: The focus on maximizing utility and fulfilling preferences can lead to a hollow existence, where actions are driven by the pursuit of pleasure or material success without a deeper sense of purpose. This instrumental approach is about "doing to do," a cycle of activity without an overarching meaning.
Humanist Pursuits: For humanists, meaning can come from scientific inquiry, the arts, and building technologically advanced societies. These pursuits aim to improve the human condition and advance knowledge, but they can still feel empty without a connection to something greater than individual or collective achievements.
Existentialist Perspective
Authenticity:
Embracing Freedom: Making choices free from societal constraints.
Conscious Decisions: Reflecting personal beliefs and desires in actions.
Responsibility: Owning the consequences of one's choices and life path.
However, the pursuit of authenticity in an indifferent world can become a circular and endless endeavor, leading to isolation, despair, and potential nihilism.
___________________________________________________
[b]Pessimism and Antinatalism: Addressing the Shortcomings of Secular Philosophies
Humanism[/b]
Humanism champions the pursuit of happiness, ethical living, and progress, with an optimistic belief in the potential for human improvement. Yet, it often glosses over the fundamental suffering that pervades life and the fleeting nature of pleasure. Pessimism, on the other hand, cuts through this idealism, recognizing that suffering is a constant part of existence. By acknowledging this harsh reality, pessimism offers a more grounded perspective that avoids the disillusionment that comes from chasing unattainable humanist ideals.
Economy as De Facto Religion
When the economy becomes a de facto religion, it offers a sense of purpose through work, consumerism, and progress, promising fulfillment through material success. However, this focus on utility often leads to a repetitive cycle of "doing to do," where the pursuit of work and consumption feels empty and devoid of deeper meaning. Pessimism highlights the hollowness of this approach, showing how it ultimately fails to address the root of human suffering. Antinatalism takes this critique further by suggesting that preventing new lives from entering this meaningless cycle is a compassionate choice.
Existentialism
Existentialism emphasizes the importance of personal freedom and authenticity in creating meaning. Yet, it struggles with the paradox of needing to be authentic while also grappling with the burden of crafting one's own purpose. This can lead to feelings of isolation and despair. Pessimism acknowledges these issues, accepting that the search for true authenticity might be an endless and unresolvable challenge. Antinatalism extends this idea by proposing that avoiding the creation of new liveswho would face this existential struggleis a more ethical approach.
Comments (47)
Such as ? It sounds like the agenda of the radical right in the USA, but if my intuition is correct, theyre going to get a shellacking in the forthcoming elections.
Quoting schopenhauer1
I read years ago that sexual products and services including production and distribution of pornography generate many times the revenue of, say, sports broadcasting. I see not a lot of comment from those espousing enlightenment values in that regard. When theres discussion of the possible connection between pornography and sexual violence against women, theres a lot of throat-clearing about the evils of censorship and a correct understanding of consent.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Against the backdrop of universe which is assumed to be devoid of reason and purpose. The religions and cosmic philosophies of times past at least provided a meaningful sense of the human place in the grand scheme, nowadays sublimated into Elon Musks utopian dreams of colonising Mars. (And I wonder how many will benefit from that adventure, even if it happens, which I doubt.)
Quoting schopenhauer1
Yes. The argument - or fear of deteriorating morality if there is no appeal to a higher Being or the Word of God - has been going on ad nauseam. Unfortunately, deeply affecting e.g. American politics.
It will be interesting to see how things might change. God seems to be as entrenched as guns.
Quoting Wayfarer
I hope nobody objects but I have shared the above in another thread. It touched on my thoughts regarding stories and any 'catharsis' gained.
From @Jack Cummins - 'Tragedy and Pleasure?'
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/923721
It's not only online pornography that shapes attitudes towards violence against women. Most thrillers - Nordic Noir - continue to have women as victims. Men, with or without religious beliefs, as perps.
Arguably, the Bible Story with its power and paternalism is used by some to justify any behaviour. And promote any malevolent political policy. The hypocrisy breath-taking.
A question which I have increasingly asked myself is whether the secularisation of enlightenment values was ever actually complete. As you note, religious belief fulfills a plausible spiritual need of
Quoting schopenhauer1
The secularisation of the humanist ideals - which were first derived from christian theology, has been successful, but it was also arguably underpinned by a continued Spiritual belief in a god. This belief is waning though.
Today these secular valued are challenged from multiple directions. On the one hand there is the internal challenge of increasingly polarised societies where the de-humanisation of opponents is increasingly normalised. On the other hand there is the external challenge by international actors who explicitly reject "western" values both on secular (e.g. China) and religious grounds.
Will the humanist values be strong enough to weather this challenge without the added resilience that a spiritual belief in their ultimate value offers?
But what if religion is just seen as it is, a fantasy meme of the past, a part of ancient cultural community practice, but not necessary post-Enlightenment? I am not saying the secular options for meaning provide a better example either. Clearly, my answer is to embrace philosophical pessimism as a clear-viewed way of understanding life. Philosophical pessimism is the antidote, not the symptom.
True, this is more of a US phenomenon, but there are right-wing movements in Europe and other places, perhaps less overtly religion-based. Certainly, abortion is still an issue for the US, and a vocal minority for religionists in other places. Somehow abortion became attached to Evangelical and Catholic political policy in the US. This was not always the case until the 70s.
According to this stark first line in Politico:
Quoting The Religious Right and the Abortion Myth
Quoting Wayfarer
The issues religious nationalism tries to solve is providing morality to the excesses of liberal/libertinism of an increasingly more culturally liberal space. Secular philosophies simply state that besides it being wrong to be directed in personal lives and decisions by the government, that the excesses aren't an issue because the economic well-being of having to work, and live everyday life will be a temper on excess. People who are preoccupied by the daily grind of producing, and the shiny stuff of consuming and maintaining a household will have built in buffers to keep them from going into any hedonistic excess. The rightwing political attempts to control people's behavior and to enact legislation that promotes their view of private matters are illiberal overreaches into other people's lives, and unnecessary as far as any goal of the need for tempering in the modern age. The economic daily living is enough to provide the tempering necessary, if any was even needed at all.
Quoting Wayfarer
So I am interested in your response to my notion of minutia mongering. For the Enlightened cognati, it seems that one can focus on the minutia of difficult subject matter, as if by mining the minutia to the utmost complexity, you are going to "get at something", like the Philosopher's Stone, or TRUTH. But it doesn't. It is just an onion that by the end of it reveals simply that complexity exists in the universe, but not MEANING. Meaning is not going to obtained by engaging in the minutia... As if the topic is more complex, the more TRUE MEANING is actually being rendered. Look at some of the perennial topics on logic, math, and science on just this forum for example:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/15353/what-can-we-say-about-logical-formulaspropositions/p1
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/15329/do-a-implies-b-and-a-implies-notb-contradict-each-other/p1
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/15354/semiotics-and-information-theory
And many years worth of the like...
Rationality is a tool. Spirituality is another tool. If your only tool is a hammer, then the whole world will start looking like a nail. Rationality is not the tool for discovering the meaning of life. On the contrary, it can only lead to absurdism:
The struggle against the absurd is the fight of the rational man who cannot accept that rationality is not the tool suitable for dealing with the existential question. Rationality won't explain why we are here. Rationality won't tell us why life is worth living.
Philosophical pessimism is just another name for rebelling and failing to overcome the absurd. It is in fact a victory for the absurd. The only way to find peace, while staying alive, even through moments of despair, is to fully allow spirituality to deal with the existential question.
Indeed, I like your idea of FEAR of deteriorating morality. I'd like to contrast the "appeal to a higher Being or Word of God" to the "appeal to the WORKPLACE and ECONOMY". As that is simply the secular political answer to meaning. Government and the economy are not in the game of MEANING, but nevertheless, secularists in the Humanist/Economics as Religion category might implicitly think this is simply what life's meaning involves. At its core is a glaring USELESS aspect of "all is vanity". That is to say, "doing to do to do to do". You do all the things to make the food to eat to make the food to eat.. Now multiply that by trillions of market interactions, but for the same USELESS (in terms of meaning) circularity. Maintenance, VCR repair guides, the universal gears of a transmission.. Minutia Mongering doesn't replace MEANING.
Good observations and question. If the question is one of meaning, what is the humanist offering on the table? I can definitely tell you though, religion's cosmic schemes are also flawed and can be dismantled, but humanism (the acceptance of the daily technological economy and the hope of science) seems hollow as well. All is vanity. There is a reason I provided Pessimism as the clear-sighted answers to all of this.
You seem to have no justification for your last claim. Religion fails as well. I am not saying religion provides THE meaning. The humanist can claim that their daily grind of economic and consumption activity whilst reading about scientific innovations in Scientific American or the Journals of X, Y, Z, and puttering in the garden and doting on the grandkids, and having sex with the wifey, and participating in community things, provides the meaning for them. I of course would dismantle this along with religion. The first part is to see what is the case, and then the next is to see what to do about it. As far as I see, any optimistic philosophy whether secular ore religious-based is obfuscating what is the case, and therefore should be reevaluated in the light of philosophical pessimism.
Looks like you quoted something I did not say, and then left the room with no real contribution except, "It's complex". Well yes, indeed. And as I said earlier, we do fetishize complexity such that the more complex it is, the more important/significant/meaningful it is, so it makes sense to leave the conversation saying "It's complex!" and then have the sense that you have deemed the situation more meaningful than what I am providing but then not contributing. Demonstrating and not telling sometimes is the case.
In very difficult circumstances, there is no rational justification for the choice to keep carrying on, instead of throwing in the towel on life itself.
Either you have a spiritual justification for that, or else you don't have one at all.
If religion also fails at that point, then your very last line of defense will also have been overrun. The humanist may not even have such last line of defense.
If what you need, is hope, because you feel desperate and hopeless, then only faith itself, the deep inner conviction that there is always hope, can give you the hope that you need.
What will save you, is not rationality.
On the contrary, that line of defense will be gone already. At that point, salvation can only come from a carefully cultivated kind of irrationality, which is spirituality.
None of the above can be rationally justified, and very much by design so.
Some of the most hedonistic and violent criminals I have worked with were devoutly religious - Muslim and Christian. No value system, no matter how drenched in piety or virtue will necessarily support the common good or bring out the best in folks.
Everyone seems to want to distract themselves from the fact that life is hard and punctuated by suffering. Amongst all this pain, social cohesion and mutual support is only possible if large swathes of society share the same values. In this era of pluralism and tribalism, stability is increasingly tenuous as the era of big, shared stories (fictions) which used to bond us are going, going, gone.
Do you see a version of pessimism which can assist us in supporting human beings to promote a more positive culture?
VS
Quoting Tom Storm
I have spent years seeking blessed assurance among Christians (and resisting it). Later I sought blessed assurance in secularism. I have spent years reading and thinking about the problems of religion, politics, economy, technology, and so on -- ultimately to no grand resolution. Why not? Per Tom Storm, life is a bitch and then you die.
Well, sometimes life was a bitch and sometimes it was pretty nice; I haven't died yet, and I've been reasonably happy and content in my old age.
The thing is, in reality life is hard and it can get worse -- like, nasty, brutish, and short. That's ground level reality. Over this reality we have endeavored to overlay various schemes to make it seem more meaningful; to keep people in line and at work; to justify the rule of whichever elite happens to be running things; to insure that enough of the right people reproduce abundantly, and so on and so forth.
We expend a great deal of scholarly labor on studying these overlays which cover the bare naked reality, from the ancient ones to yesterday's pronouncements. There is clear evidence that many people are ceasing to find some of the overlays, like religion, as compelling as they once did. Peak religiosity in the United States occurred in 1960, give or take. The hemorrhaging of church membership ensued as millions of members left the churches and never returned.
I just find a lot of what the more intellectual nattering classes chatter on about to be kind of beside the point. Maybe some of them should "get a life" as the saying goes.
But not you, schopenhauer1: you have to keep doing what you are doing!
Quoting Wayfarer
According to Statista, "Market size of the online pornographic and adult content industry in the United States in 2023" was $1.1B. Many 'lurid' claims are made about the porn industry, a lot of which just doesn't sound believable.
I'm familiar with gay porn, and it seems like there are fewer gay porn sites now than there were 10 or 15 years ago. Monthly subscription prices seem to be lower. Production values are better than they once were, and there are only so many possible acts and positions to portray (though I did see a remarkable innovation recently... but never mind). The market for straight porn should be much, much larger, but I don't have any experience with it.
Unfortunately, the enlighteners(/ed), in their sheltered naïveté, were almost always the cream of the crop of their societies, having basically no day-to-day contact with the lower classes:
Quoting Leontiskos
Alas, when it comes to virtue, the average person is much closer to an orangutan than to Napoleon.
Quoting schopenhauer1
I have no evidence upon which to found this, but I think my life has had much more suffering than the average pessimist's; and yet, somehow, I think life is awesome.
In fact, it is the people who actually went through great hardships and actual suffering that seem to have the most positive outlook on life. The "always kinda-depressed but not really" type seems to be an existence that occurs almost exclusively in upper middle-class urban settings. There is almost a role-play element to it:
"Oh no, my crush is sleeping with another guy! There are children in Africa starving! Time to read another Dostoyevsky novel."
Perhaps there is a neurological element to it. For someone who went through a great crisis, everyday life will often be a high. For those however who have dwelt forever in mundane mediocrity, life is like a constant barely-worse-than-average experience.
To those types: have you guys ever tried lifting heavy weights regularly?
Quoting schopenhauer1
Wow, I was skeptical about it before, but now that you put it this way, Christian nationalism sounds awesome.
Quoting schopenhauer1
He never does.
All I can say is you represent the common religionists view of things. What about this theory is compelling for you?
When I use compelling here, it is in two ways:
1) How is it personally compelling (easier answer)
2) How is it compelling based on the facts brought about by academia that religion was the slow evolution of ideas and the splicing together and reworking of various ideas into novel ones, playing out as "tradition" and "innovation" based on the tastes, cultures, and personalities that had a hand in creating these ideas.
And this leads to 3...
How can you justify 1 based on 2? And if you cannot, but it becomes a personal thing, how is it just not a coping idea that justifies any number of negative aspects of life (Because GOD WANTS IT, because GOD ALLOWS IT, because GOD IS TEACHING HIS LITTLE SUBJECTS A LESSON, because GOD WANTS TO CONNECT WITH THE LOWER REALMS).. it all sounds like excuses for a divine narcissist/sadist, no? It went from "Worship me correctly and I will bless you with X, Y, Z" and for Christian/Muslims it went to "Worship me correctly and I will not castigate you to eternal torture". Then to the "softer/gentler" God presumed in more Enlightened times is either more remote and redundant (Deism), or pantheism (redefine the universe and consciousness and totality as GOD..Fuzzy Wuzzy WOOO) or "He", is made more Neoplatonic (Medieval/Renaissance Christian mysticism or for Judaism Kabbalah, or for Islam forms of Sufism). Or, he is a New Age God, and he is LOVE, and we are HIM, and rehashing and warmed over Schopenhauer to make his idea of the UNITY and INDIVIDUATION into a fuzzy wuzzy concept and obfuscating the author of such ideas.. An author that they would think is too pessimistic, dark , cynical, instead of thanking the dark philosophy for providing them the tools to rework to their optimistic coping mechanism.
Quoting Lionino
The actual or detailed particulars of spirituality do not matter in this context.
The only question is: Does his capacity to spirituality help the sufferer of great pains to overcome them? Does it give hope where there would otherwise not be any? In other words, does his capacity to spirituality reinforce the person's survival instinct? Does it contribute to his survival?
Even soldiers know about this. They may find themselves outnumbered ten to one on the battlefield. At first glance the situation may look hopeless. However, if the soldiers are capable of spirituality, instead of giving up, they may double down and possibly even save the day. On the other hand, a soldier who lacks the capacity for spirituality may in critical moments lack the courage to do what it takes.
Just like rationality is a tool that contributes in its own way to survival, spirituality is another tool which contributes in another way. Furthermore, just like I have no spiritual considerations to make about rationality, I have no rational considerations to make about spirituality. I just let each tool do its job.
In my opinion, people who seek to make rational considerations about spirituality ("academia") are mostly wasting their time. If your only tool is a hammer, the whole world will inevitably start looking like a nail.
Seriously, instead of reading books about swimming in order to get some useless degree in "swimmology", just jump into the swimming pool and start swimming instead. That is a much more effective step in the direction of a future gold medal at the Olympics.
Not only that, but in that citation I also see a strong reply to Nozick's experience machine.
:up:
Quoting Tom Storm
Indeed, they see themselves perhaps in the very things they deem to keep "at bay". It's their own demons they are projecting, perhaps. There's a reason these preachers and politicians are caught with their pants down so many times... And of course nothing more needs to be said about suicide bombers, Jihadis, and AK-47 mystics, cult leaders, and influencers.
Quoting Tom Storm
Good question. Yes, that's what I am presenting here. If we all SEE "what is the case", then we can perhaps be on the same page as to how to proceed.
1) We must see "what is the case" first:
a) This means, seeing the inherent and contingent forms of suffering of life.. The dissatisfied nature of the animal psyche, and the more magnified version of the human psyche with its degrees of freedom, choice, and self-reflection.
b) This means recognizing that the human is metaphorically "exiled" from the Garden of Eden. Unlike other animals, our degrees of freedom mean that we know we have choices, and deliberation, and we know that we know. Technically, we don't have to do anything, including life itself (suicide) or procreation. And this "seemingness" (at the least) of choice, means we don't necessarily move about unthinkingly by instinct, reflex, but by largely deliberative means. An extra burden.
2) We must proceed in the world with the recognition of "what is the case".
a) That means seeing other humans as fellow-sufferers. Imagine the power dynamics of survival. How would this look played out in various institutions of business management for example? In government? In homelife? For friends? For strangers? Follow it through...
b) Communities of catharsis. It would be easier to vent, complain, as a community. Instead of pretending that the next mountain hike, or the puttering in the garden, or House of God Worship session, or Netflix show is the answer, we understand what is going on here with each dissatisfied response and inherent lack.
c) Antinatalism.. The ultimate recognition that no one else should go through this, that it is not just/right to unnecessarily harm others, put them through the existence of suffering/harm/what is the case. That you enjoying a mountain hike or Netflix or gardening, or academic journal reading, or going over a paper on symbolic logic, thermodynamics, theoretical physics (this is for the PF crowd of course :)) or going to work and doing that project means someone else is forced into life. Follow the logic of the illogic of procreation and projecting one's own positive projects, whilst creating negative consequences for ANOTHER.
EDIT: You must understand, if you find the Pessimist framework I lay out as "Wrong", it doesn't matter, because you are ALREADY in the (de facto) optimist framework of the situatedness of the society your were PROCREATED into and are now following, and moving about in. The Pessimist is just saying that we should question THIS framework- the one we are de facto buying into, and to STOP the perpetuation of this framework. So if you are AGAINST the Pessimist framework, you are then for "anti-anti-current framework", which means YOU are advocating FOR something yourself (this framework, and its goodness/rightness/perpetuation, even unto others). So YOU have a position too, even if anti-anti-framework position... Game YES or Game NO, you still have a position, no matter what, about the game.
This argument fails on multiple levels, not only in its understanding of suffering but also in its attempt to trivialize the profound and universal nature of human dissatisfaction. The claim that real suffering leads to a more positive outlook, while the so-called "mundane" sufferings of the middle class are mere role-play, is a gross misrepresentation of the human condition.
To begin with, the notion that suffering is somehow confined to the middle class or that its a "middle class thing" is absurd and dangerously misleading. Suffering, in all its formswhether it's the daily grind of a workday, the relentless dissatisfaction that Schopenhauer so accurately described, or the contingent miseries of life such as disasters, illness, or the loss of loved onesis universal. It transcends class, culture, and background. Schopenhauers philosophy of pessimism lays bare the reality that life is a series of unfulfilled desires, where satisfaction is always fleeting, and suffering is inherent in existence itself. This dissatisfaction, this perpetual striving that leads to nothing but more striving, is not a middle-class afflictionit is the essence of human existence.
The idea that the working class doesnt suffer, or suffers less than those in more privileged positions, is not only false but also a harmful stereotype. It perpetuates the myth that only those with the luxury of introspection or relative comfort experience existential angst. This is not the case. The working class faces its own unique forms of sufferingoften harsh, relentless, and unforgiving. The daily struggle to make ends meet, the physical toll of labor, the anxiety of job insecurity, and the constant threat of financial ruin are all forms of suffering that are every bit as real and pervasive as any other. To suggest that these are not "real" forms of suffering, or that they somehow lead to a more positive outlook, is to ignore the reality of the human condition and the universality of dissatisfaction.
Moreover, the pseudo-Nietzschean rhetoric that underpins this argumenta misguided celebration of hardship as something that strengthens and elevatesis a superficial and ultimately flawed understanding of suffering. While Nietzsches ideas about the will to power and the overcoming of obstacles can be inspiring, they often get twisted into a macho, tough-guy narrative that ignores the deeper, more pervasive suffering that Schopenhauer so brilliantly articulated. Schopenhauer understood that suffering is not something that can be simply overcome or transformed into strength; it is the fundamental condition of life. The dissatisfaction that arises from unfulfilled desires, the endless cycle of wanting and never truly being satisfiedthese are not challenges to be overcome but the very fabric of existence.
The argument also makes the mistake of trivializing the struggles of those who suffer in less dramatic or visible ways. Just because someones suffering doesnt fit the conventional narrative of hardship doesnt mean its any less real. The "always kinda-depressed" individual, the person who feels a constant sense of unease or dissatisfactionthese experiences are not mere role-play. They are manifestations of the very same universal dissatisfaction that Schopenhauer described. They are evidence of the inherent suffering that comes with being human, regardless of ones class or circumstances.
This argument also falls into the trap of anecdotal evidence, using isolated examples to make sweeping generalizations about the nature of suffering. Just because some individuals may emerge from hardship with a positive outlook does not mean this is the universal outcome. In reality, suffering often leaves people scarred, disillusioned, and deeply affected. The idea that suffering is a test to be passed, rather than a fundamental part of existence, is a misunderstanding that Schopenhauers philosophy of pessimism powerfully refutes.
I think this is correct and well put. :up:
:down:
Nah, I actually answered that line of thinking quite handily. ;).
Human dissatisfaction is not trivialised; on the contrary, it is ennobled.
Quoting schopenhauer1
I never said that the suffering of the middle class is mundane or role-play.
Quoting schopenhauer1
I never said suffering is confined to the middle-class. First you imply that I believe the suffering of the middle class is role-play, now that I think only the middle-class suffers. You are inputting two contradictory positions to me.
Quoting schopenhauer1
I never said that either.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Schopenhauer's pessimism teaches us to accept the reality of suffering in life one can think of Buddhism's magga. We can take the acceptance of suffering in life one step further and use suffering instead as a weapon.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Ok? That is just ad hominem and complaining, not arguing. If the tough guy is thriving in a fulfilling life, does the "deeper, more pervasive suffering" really exist universally or is it a psychological consequence of wallowing in pessimism?
Quoting schopenhauer1
Not at al. You are arguing against a strawman. A struggle may be completely private and yet empower the individual immensely.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Good job simply restating your position. Naturally, I think you are wrong, and I think that those people should go lift heavy weights.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Yes, and those strenghten you. Some instances of suffering are of course excessive, and an individual may have all the rights to be depressed, but I don't think that most people lead lives that justify that. And, in fact, promoting that as something to be accepted and not overcome simply demotivates others from taking their open wounds and scarring them by making them think that the wound was too great when in reality it was not.
Quoting schopenhauer1
How about a fundamental test of existence?
Overall, your counterargument (starting from the second paragraph) seems to be that suffering exists across all social classes. Well, obviously. However my post is not about social class, it just used one as an example. Beyond that, there is no counterargument but a restatement of your position by "No, those people are actually sad because life really really sucks" and "Schopenhauer refutes that" and perhaps he does, but you didn't.
Quoting schopenhauer1
I think you have an established conclusion that you want to achieve no matter what.
's "I never said's" confirm what I took from your response. It's like you were responding to a different post, and this seems to happen a lot in these antinatalism threads.
---
Quoting Lionino
I think the responses were already in hand before the objections were read.
Even though dukkha cannot be eliminated, it is reduced or mitigated frequently and in many reliable ways daily by many persons. As a daily exercise for cultivating 'well-being', Epicurean "tetrapharmakos" is therapeutically comparable to (even more pragmatic than) the "Four Noble Truths" or the Daodejing & the Zhuangzi. One doesn't need to remain dissatisfied with the prevalence of dissatisfaction; reducing dissatisfaction, however much or temporarily, cultivates degrees of 'satisfaction'. Schopenhaurean pessimism merely amounts to self-fulfilling immiseration (even though it aptly reflects an inescapable fact of (human) existence). As Cioran points out, we suffer from being conscious of life how we interpret life and not life itself; likewise, absurdists like Zapffe, Camus & Rosset say as much as well. At least Mainländer wasn't a hypocrite like Schopenhauer and lived out the logical conclusion of his anti-life metaphysics. :smirk:
Excellent observations :D. Add to the nattering classes the Nietazscheans. There is a strand of optimism that thinks like this:
We are all established conclusions because we had no say in it brotha ;). The choice to not even have to exit is not a choice. As Cioran put it:
Quoting Lionino
By this I mean, that the middle class "faux suffers". Sorry I should be more specific on how you are misguided.
Quoting Lionino
You imply that the non-upper...blah blah class suffers a certain way implying other classes don't (not even that they are incapable, just "don't" suffer exisitential ways, and that suffering is needed in the Nietzschean doesn't kill me make me stronger way and that other classes "really" suffer. :down:
Quoting Lionino
It's actually the opposite of acceptance. It is not TOAISM or NIETZSCHEANISM or STOICISM which are philosophy of acceptance. It is, similar to Buddhism (so you got that right at least), a philosophy of DENIAL (of the Will). I have many posts on that distinction actually if you want me to direct you to better thinking on the matter.
Quoting Lionino
Or sometimes struggle is just a struggle, and is negative. It's not the outcome even, but that we struggle. But SADISM is saying that suffering is necessary for happiness, and you should LIKE IT because ACCEPTANCE. Coping mechanisms. Have your stories.. See Zapffe.
Quoting Lionino
Right. Glad to know you solved the problems of suffering with the gym, brah. Talk about middle class solutions.
Quoting Lionino
I defer to someone who thought about suffering. I explained the dissatisfaction inherent that is his main point. I don't need much more than that. I can explain other things but that is the core point- we are dissatisfied creatures, humans all the more for our self-reflective/deliberative capacities that compound the dissatisfaction.
Quoting Lionino
Ah yes, YOU are the arbiter of what people should be feeling about life.
If you are referring to how Linino responded, it seems so yes.
Yes we've been over the notion of the philosophies of acceptance and denial. I don't see satisfaction-attaining as a matter of hypothetical imperatives cooked up by aphoristic wisdom. Even Schop had these in his Maxims. One can train before a game to get better at the game. It's the game I am looking at. Unlike an actual game, the contingencies involved and ability not to escape. And if you discuss suicide like Mainlander.. Again I quote a philosopher you also seem to like, Cioran:
The rejection of birth is nothing but the nostalgia for this time before time.
Only optimists commit suicide, optimists who no longer succeed at being optimists.
I think that's partly the critique, but it can go in a number of directions. Partly the critique is that people are made unfree by hedonism, they are essentially chained to their appetites and conditioned passions à la A Brave New World. They never develop a capacity for self-determination. Huxley is a good example here, or for a (slightly) more religious angle you might consider C.S. Lewis' The Abolition of Man, particularly just the last, rather short chapter, which can be found here: here.
I don't think this is exclusively the purview of "Christian nationalists." This seems to be a fairly common objection to the direction of modernity. A key idea is that "not everything we desire is good for us," even if we can grow the economy or make some men rich by allowing or promoting them. The issue here isn't so much any one religion but belief in a concrete human good, which, as Lewis notes, is common to the Indian and Chinese traditions as well.
Virtually all people agree with this sort of view to some degree. Very few people want the drinking age lowered to 11 because kids might enjoy a drink, for pornography to be show on broadcast television because people might want to tune in (although it might as well be given how ubiquitous it is), for heroin to be sold as the corner store like candy, or even for us to market and hook kids on sugary and caffeine loaded drinks the way we do. Nor do we want people to necessarily be able to buy all manner of things just because they'd like to consume themhence why I have never gotten to mount an anti-tank guided missile on my car to stop people from cutting me off.
There is even some grudging acceptance that the state and society have a shared interest in forcing people to undergo an education. Although here you can see the fault lines come through. A lot of people want such an education to be "practical," to be totally focused on "getting a job," and so really focused on "doing some unpleasantness now so you (and we) can all consume more in the future." Lewis would represent the common opposition to this way of thinking, the traditional view that education should involve showing people what should be appreciated, an education in good taste, a moral education, an "education in the virtues," and the fostering of "excellence." Obviously, for people who deny that excellence really exists, or goodness, the focus is different since moral "conditioning" can only really ever be justified on some other grounds (perhaps higher consumption for all). Why is more consumption better? That's a good question; it seems unanswerable given common starting points vis-á-vis goodness.
Anyhow, the OP seems to dismiss any real belief in "goodness as such," as opposed to some sort of operationalization like "promoting pleasure," as the realm of religious fanatics. I don't think this is particularly accurate. And the common critique from this direction of existentialism and hedonism would tend to be:
A. That it ignores the risk of being ruled over by appetites, passions, and circumstancethat it ignores the freedom of the self over the self, and the unification of the self (as opposed to Plato and St. Paul's "civil war within the soul"); and
B. That it ends up being ultimately arbitrary. Value is "created" based on what? Why is becoming free to create one's values "good?" Why is authenticity "good?" What if someone is authentically a sadist, or thinks they are? Why shouldn't they deprive others of their freedom? The pragmatism of "live and let live," would of course only apply if one were not strong enough to overcome all rivals, and so it really can't be an answer to these questions.
If suffering was constant could it be distinguished from non-suffering? Suffering might be ubiquitous, but then again so is pleasure.
It seems to me that pessimism needs to show that the Good is truly unachievable, not merely that suffering is ubiquitous. Medieval thought for instance can often be pessimistic. The world is indeed fallen, and what is worse progressively decaying and getting worse. Life is filled with suffering and evil. However it has a radically different conclusion because the Good is achievable
lol, but the last part doesn't make sense. The Brother's Karamazov presents both one of the most effective arguments against the acceptance of suffering (Ivan in Pro and Contra) and also one of the most powerful theodicies in response to it (David Bentley Hart's "The Doors of the Sea," on the 2004 tsunami is a great essay looking at BK as well). Reading Dostoevsky should have the opposite effect!
Harvey Cox, a distinguished and maybe even popular theologian (he's 95 years old) wrote The Secular City in 1964. This was at a time when the people in the pews had noticed the EXIT signs over the church doors and were leaving the church, mostly to not return, Secular institutions--government, media, entertainment, corporations, education, etc. were becoming more dominant in society, not just in the US, but around the world.
Cox proclaimed that God was as present in secular societies as in any religious one, because God is present at all times and in all places, whether we like it or not. The problem of believers, per Cox, is to discern God, and discern what it means to believe in God, and be Christian in the middle of societies organizing or reorganizing around secular principles.
There is nothing to be done about secularism. It has developed over time and been driven by various processes, like industrialism, technology, and so on. It is a fact of life; it's the world we live in; it isn't going away; it isn't the enemy.
The Secular City made a very big impression on my 17 year old brain in 1964, and it's had an enduring influence. I was brought up in a religious (Protestant) home, and Christianity, whether I like it or not, is the core of my 'operating system'. There were / are conflicts between core beliefs and current realities. When the choice was between physically affirming my gayness and faith, the Christian condemnation of homosexuality--and promiscuous, anonymous, hedonistic sex in general, gay or straight--had to be dumped over-board. Sexuality was the right choice and the church was wrong. (And, of course, more power to those who love monogamously till death do them part.)
Still, God is present in the gay bath house, the brothel, and walks with the street whores (aka sex workers). If God worries about sparrows, God also worries about the well-being of "degenerate" members of the community. The preaching of Jesus is relevant in all places, (brothel or corporate board room) something most of us find quite inconvenient.
Secularism may be accommodating to the least among us, but just as likely, it may be dismissive or punitive--like the neglect of the homeless living on the street. That certainly describes the church's overall approach--cue the pogrom, the stake and firewood, public humiliations, etc. Jesus still stands against all that, even if it is all done in His name.
God, Jesus, and salvation are motivations one won't find in secularism. There are other motivations, of course, and I'm not knocking them.
I've been far more secular than religious for decades. If I am standing up religion here, it is just to say that IF a secularized individual needs some rock solid moral directives, religion does offer them. Just don't get carried away and turn them into cruelty, bigotry and oppression (like stoning apostates to death or burning heretics at the stake).
Quoting 180 Proof
i.e. learned helplessness. :mask:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Learned_helplessness
As for the OP's 'problem of secularism', I think it is the same as the 'problem of democracy': tolerance of the intolerant (i.e. sectarian anti-secularists & partisan anti-democrats, respectively), and not uneven, or inconsistent, 'Enlightenment melioration-ism' per se.
This isn't really "New Age." It's in First John: "? ???? ????? ?????," generally rendered as "God is love." (God is also being itself, that "in which we live and move and have our being"Book of Acts 17:28and truly subsistent being, being where essence entails existenceExodus 3:7-14.) Apokatastasis, the doctrine that the entire cosmos shall be redeemed, including the Devil and his archons, far from being a modern "hippy" innovation, was at its peak in the first 500 years of the Church. It was probably more popular that "infernalism," the doctrine of eternal punishment for sinners, in the first 300 years (this did not mean it was a majority opinion; majority opinion was that unrepentant sinners would simply cease to exist, or that all people would endure purgation and some would cease to exist to the extent they did not repent). In the Oriental Orthodox churches one finds matter of fact references to universal salvation until the 14th century.
The question of how to deal with the evolution of tradition is as old as theology. Bart Ehrman types or your Christopher Hitchensens might think that the problems of reconciling changes in tradition is a modern problem brought out by "new tools of scholarship," but it isn't. Questions like the authorship of some Epistles are as old as Christian theology, showing up in Origen. In fact, because the Jewish and Christian Canon were still open people were particularly aware of how man's decisions effected tradition.
Likewise, visions of tradition as unfolding in history according to Divine Providence, but also shaped by the free volitions of creatures (man but also angels, and corrupt archons/principalities)the idea that Plato was were he was, when he was to help with understanding revelation, or that Rome helped to bring Athens and Jerusalem together, and the general idea of historical synthesis driving on progress, all go back long before Hegel (Eusebius, St. Jerome, etc.). A big innovation of Christianity was to extend the cyclical philosophy of history dominant in antiquity into a spiral pattern progressing towards a teleological horizon.
David Bentley Hart's Tradition and Apocalypse is a pretty good book on this, although I think it undersells the historicism present in earlier eras.
No, not at all. You can only reread my post until you stop seeing statements that are not there, it is clearly written, but I know it is not gonna happen.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Sure I should have said resignation towards suffering instead of acceptance.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Many psychologists would agree with that. It is not sadism.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Yes, it worked for a bunch of people and keeps working every year. Be honest, do you exercise?
You didn't have to post that image twice, by the way.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Most people are not depressed or miserable despite having far worse lives than you, so it is you who thinks yourself an arbiter.
You are arguing as if you are in the Lounge. This thread should be merged into the antinatalism containment thread, because that is what it is.
And there should be a thread for Nietzsche answers.. All answers that implicitly refer to NIetzschean "pain is gain" straight to that thread. Can we parse out your replies to those?
Dude bro, you said the most dismissive trivialized version of Pessimism I've seen in a while right here and I countered it. You said:
Quoting Lionino
Go F off then if you say you didn't say what I responded to in kind.
Thank you so much. That was beautiful.
This doesn't much describe what I experience as finding life meaningful, although there is an aspect of 'doing art' involved in the story below. For me what is most meaningful lies in human interactions, and cherished memories of such interactions.
I'm particularly high on finding life beautiful right now, due to a message I received yesterday. I want to share it, although I don't know if it will seem meaningful to you, and in fact I wonder if it will somehow make you angry.
To start off, there is this video game called Journey. It's a very artistic game designed with a goal of providing people with spiritual experiences via one on one interactions between two people, with the only means of communication between the players being via on screen 'body language' and repertoire of beeps. Typically you are playing with a stranger and don't find out the other player's screen name until the game is over. One playthrough of the game takes about two hours.
Five years ago I played through the game with someone, and afterwards I received a personal message that said:
I'm not going to bother typing my response, but three months later she messaged again to say:
To that I replied:
Yesterday, I decided to try another game of Journey, though the game is old and there aren't many playing these days. It can take a while to be paired up with a companion. When I logged on I found the following message:
I guess my point, other than just wanting to share something very beautiful and meaningful to me, is that the nonexistence of cosmic meaning just doesn't seem very important to me. The human capacity for finding things meaningful exists, regardless of whether meaning exists. Furthermore the rather large percentage of the human population able to find such interactions meaningful simply isn't going to be argued out of finding life meaningful.
Quoting Count Timothy von Icarus
God is love from Book of John.. Arguably, John can be viewed in light of Marcion's notion that the God of the Hebrew Scriptures, the creator god, was a demiurge of sorts who had a host of negative traits. It was Jesus and his more universal message from the Higher God that came to set the story straight and save from the material realm.
Quoting Count Timothy von Icarus
Concepts of Hell are mainly from notions of Hades/Tartarus. The old notion of Sheol has little to do with purgation or sins.
Quoting Count Timothy von Icarus
For sure, you can see these types of questions of authorship and authority in Dead Sea Scroll Sect, Josephus, and Philo.. And certainly people have questioned gospel authorship since their inception.
Quoting Count Timothy von Icarus
This is a sort of supercessionism.. It can't be pure Jerusalem. Needs help from Plato to make sense of Judaic literature. Philo, for example spearheaded this. Paul took it in some directions, and Church Fathers completed the mixture. If we are going to throw out the native Judaic interpretations, let's go full hog and go with Marcion and the Gnostics, none of this middle ground stuff (The Israelite/Judaic stuff was legitimate but no longer, so fuck em). For the originators of the materials surrounding "Yahweh and his people", it was better to be ignored or chastised than superseded, hence the Gnostics were the least fatal. Paul and Church Fathers were deadly folks (Origen, Tertullian, Irenaeus. Eusebius etc.). Supercessionism is deadly.
Arguably angels came into being either as a relic of the old Canaanite pantheon that got subsumed into lower beings, and/or influence from Persia during the Babylonian Exile. The Books of Daniel and Ezekiel for example, seem to be something relatively innovative, and there was a time between 200 BCE- 500 CE that angels predominated Jewish non-canonical literature, especially the characters of Enoch and Metatron, but "archangels" like Michael, Gabriel, Uriel, and Raphael.
Indeed, there is a Platonic or even just Aristotlean notion to this. Anytime there is an idea of "Higher" and "Lower" pleasures, it seems to allude to a sort of "realist" notion of Good or at least one who has cultivated a virtuous life.
So in this view, clearly Einstein's insights into theoretical physics would be Higher.
Passively watching TV for 10 hours is Lower.
Masturbating to images of a lewd nature is Lower.
Sexual union with a significant other is Higher.
Figuring out the complexities of the human biochemical system to develop new drugs Higher.
Figuring out the best bet on a gambling app is Lower.
Reading Medieval philosophers on the notion of the Good is Higher.
Reading trashy romance or thrillers is Lower.
And we can think of various things here. But the point is that "Lower" seems to indicate something like purely physical, or low effort. They are too easy. Higher takes effort, is more aesthetic than physical, takes mental effort, and uses more than physical sensory systems.
Quoting Count Timothy von Icarus
Good questions, but as you might have noticed, I did not embrace Existentialism either. Hedonism, Humanism, Economics as Religion (I made that up, but it's essentially hedonism without knowing it), and Existentialism are all critiqued, and instead Pessimism is what is proposed.
Also, in a Platonic idea of "Higher" and "Lower" if Goodness comes in various forms, then you can see this in gradations...
sex for fun < sex with lover | < love for lover (Eros) < love for friend (Philia) or family (Stroge) < saintly, love of Good itself, or God (agape)
Even in the sciences you can make a Platonic gradation...
Practical Science (applied physics, engineering, chemistry etc.), theoretical science (theoretical physics, etc.) > mathematics and logic > gnosis of the Form itself
Mind you (no pun intended), I don't believe in that shit, but I will indulge the notion for philosophical argument's sake.
I fear that your distinction might be missing the point. The workout routines of the cast of the Jersey Shore probably required a lot of effort, but it seems that were not very edifying. The Place of the Lion or Out of the Silent Planet are meant to be easy reads, enjoyable fantasy/sci-fi, [I]and[/I] edifying.
Whitman's walks in the woods reach towards the "higher," despite being physical, while a much more strenuous run aimed only at eliminating body fat to look "cut for the girls at the club," might fail in the dimensions where Whitman succeeds.
To be honest, the division into "higher" and "lower" activities seems likely to become pernicious and misleading. The point, as I take it, is more that there are proper responses and orientations to things in the world. To see Zion or the Grand Canyon for the first time and go right back to playing Candy Crush on one's phone is to miss something important. Likewise, to find a lost and injured child on a trail and to respond with an internal shrug of "not my problem," is similarly a sort of failure.
You mentioned the study of the natural sciences. Without getting into a long digression into Plato, I think it's worth pointing out that the development of techne and episteme is important because it makes us more self-determining and more fully real as ourselves. These aren't always good in themselves except to the extent they involve self-transcedence. But obviously they can be pursued in a way that is tainted by vice.
No, I don't think I missed the point with the distinction. Rather, you are simplifying my point. It isn't JUST effort (like the Jersey Shore sweating it out for vanity), but for a connection to an aesthetic or mental union or understanding. Generally, this does take more effort (mentally, aesthetically), but it also aims at some view of reality that aims above and beyond that of mere physical pleasure or self-interest.
Of course, I don't believe that Platonic spin on things myself, but I am indulging the point of view of the Platonic Realist. You might get a sense of sublime, I don't think it means you are reaching any instantiated Form. In this sense, I don't agree with Schopenhauer's very Platonist view of Forms as laid out in The WWR. However, his notion of Will does have enormous cache. That is to say, there is something to the idea that engaging in certain activities "attunes" ones will by focusing it acutely, or its opposite, of "clearing" the mind, or even "filling it up" (experience of the sublime, letting the object take ahold of your view over and above the internal chatter).
As far as self-determination and its more goal-oriented form of "self-actualization", I see this as its own vanity. In that sense, can the saint, or the Ubermensch be vain in their attempts at such?