The Problem of Affirmation of Life

Reply to kirillov Hello kirillov, welcome to TPF. If those ideas haven't satisfied you, I guess it is time to move on and search for new ideas that can inspire you. I see you have read both Schopenhauer and Nietzsche. Didn't you try Kierkegaard? And before him, there is also Hegel.

I understand that Kierkegaard could be complex. I admit that it took a lot to understand him, and not always satisfactorily! Depending on translations and context, I think it would help you his works on anxiety/dread/angst.

The Concept of Anxiety is one of his most known and notable works, yet I liked Fear and Trembling more.

Fear and Trembling speaks of many of Kierkegaard's most well-known concepts, such as the absurd, knight of faith, single individual, teleological suspension of the ethical, three stages, tragic hero, and so on.

On the other hand, if you enjoy reading novels, Dostoevsky is also a good choice.

Reply to javi2541997 , I appreciate you for your answer.

I did try. His "leap of faith" is not for me either. I just can't.
Though I didn't read him entirely. Maybe I should.

Dostoevsky is one of my favorites writers, my nickname is borrowed from his "Demons". :)

Welcome to the forum.

Quoting kirillov

, I need somehow to justify this eternal suffering.

I don’t want to distract from your subject matter, so I’ll just say this and then begone - Not everyone sees life and the world this way.

Quoting kirillov

ife is eternal suffering.

One is just as justified to say life is eternal joy as saying life is eternal suffering. I wouldnt say either is accurate though becuase obviously both exist, and generally one experiences both until death. If you choose to focus only on the suffering (necessitated by the view “life is eternal suffering) then thats on you, not life. If your life is eternal suffering then thats your life, not life in general.
So the only thing you are justified claiming is that your life is full of suffering. Maybe it is I dont know, but it really makes very little sense to make the same claim for all lives or on the behalf of everyone.
Regardless, you will not find the answer in philosophies. Perspective is the issue here, starting with acknowledging that even if your life is eternal suffering that doesnt mean life in general is.

Reply to kirillov

Welcome to the forums!

First, I would see a psychologist if you're having issues dealing with depression or emotional issues. Philosophy can when we're not knee deep in emotional torpor, but a good person can help you work through it when you're in the thick of it.

I view good as existence. The more, the better. Life is one of the most complex and concentrated existences the universe contains. It is a set of chemical reactions that does not merely burn out, but seeks to renew itself for as long as possible. And as such we, life, make the world into something so much more existent than it would be had we all remained inert carbon.

The sadness of course is some life has it harder than others. Could be physical or mental issues. Yet while such a life is not as blessed as another, in comparison to the rocks in the ground it is still a light in the universe. Focus not on the things you can't do, but on the things you can. Write, read, play games, make some art. Do, be, and live in ways that let you forget its pains where you can.

Quoting Philosophim

Life is one of the most complex and concentrated existences the universe contains. It is a set of chemical reactions that does not merely burn out, but seeks to renew itself for as long as possible. And as such we, life, make the world into something so much more existent than it would be had we all remained inert carbon.

:up: :up:

Quoting kirillov

How can life be justified in spite of all the suffering it entails?

Only some statements "can be justified" (e.g. by how things happen to be) and not facts such as "suffering". As Epicurus points out: one's actions (i.e habits) can either increase or decrease (or both) one's own suffering and/or suffering of others. "The meaning of life"– its value or "justification" (if there is such a thing) – as Nietzsche says, belongs to the world, or nature as a whole, and not to any one of us who suffers. We are beings-in-question (from suffering), so how each being answers individually and communally (for suffering) is what matters first and foremost; thus, courage (contra hope (or despair)) is the 'foundation' of all other virtues (i.e. habits which decrease suffering). Amor fati. :death: :flower:

Reply to kirillov For Nietzsche, the approbation of life comes through Music. But also, you have a few things I would like to discuss upon. I will edit this post soon with more to say.

In Birth of Tragedy N details more or less early on that the approbation of life comes through creators creating a faith and hanging that faith over a people such that the faith serves their way of life...

Creation is Nietzsche's "politics" away from the State (we can see this in The New Idol) and it is creation that is the most valuable life affirming tool. Creation allows the creator to hold up a transfiguring mirror that affirms the demands of their life.

For Nietzsche in particular, we can see from the Birth of Tragedy and the Gay Science that "life is music" and that all the philosophers from Socrates to Kant had "wax in their ears."

In the attempt at self criticism of Birth of Tragedy, we can see Nietzsche details himself at the time of the writing that the book is made up first and foremost from the thoughts and after thoughts of an artist...

This means Nietzsche considers himself an artist as he wrote it. He realized that the book was badly written and changed his angle a bit, to diacuss the affirmation of life in a more universal sense based out of perspective of the beholder. Hence by the time we get to the prologue to BGE we have that "perspective is the fundamental condition of life."

As you've detailed suffering is quite an integral part of N' philosophy, and I have a great quote from N himself as to why suffering is integral, and it's more or less that it itself is transfiguring...

Nietzsche, § 3 of the Preface to the second edition of GS.:It will be surmised that I should not like to take leave ungratefully of that period of severe sickness, the advantage of which is not even yet exhausted in me: for I am sufficiently conscious of what I have in advance of the spiritually robust generally, in my changeful state of health. A philosopher who has made the tour of many states of health, and always makes it anew, has also gone through just as many philosophies: he really cannot do otherwise than transform his condition on every occasion into the most ingenious posture and position,—this art of transfiguration is just philosophy....It is great pain only, the long slow pain which takes time, by which we are burned as it were with green wood, that compels us philosophers to descend into our ultimate depths, and divest ourselves of all trust, all good-nature, veiling, gentleness, and averageness, wherein we have perhaps formerly installed our humanity. I doubt whether such pain "improves" us; but I know that it deepens us.

We can see that suffering doesn't necessarily improve us. And Nietzsche details this further in Genealogy... as slave morality often arises out of those who suffer, and fail to disgest the internalization of that suffering. Where as the noble moralities always spring from the triumphant affirmation of ones own demands... (GoM 10).

Quoting kirillov

So, what's your solution to this?

Life is suffering because consciousness depends on a story arc in which pain and suffering is overcome. The end of the story is the resolution. Satisfaction is death. This is Schopenhauer's point.

Realizing that the world doesn't need to be saved, that it's exactly what it's supposed to be isn't armchair philosophy.

Quoting frank

This is Schopenhauer's point.

Yes, but @kirillov doesn't see Schopenhauer's point as really satisfactory. I think the solution might be to recommend other readings or philosophers, as I did with Kierkegaard. Furthermore, I honestly believe that K is more relevant than Schopenhauer regarding the understanding of angst, dread, or suffering. But I guess that he is often not mentioned because some think he was actually a theologian.

Quoting DifferentiatingEgg

In Birth of Tragedy N details more or less early on that the approbation of life comes through creators creating a faith and hanging that faith over a people such that the faith serves their way of life...

Absolutely, for early Nietzsche. Affirmation of life through creation of illusions (Der Wahn). But he rejected this idea because it veils life, not affirms it.

Quoting DifferentiatingEgg

We can see that suffering doesn't necessarily improve us. And Nietzsche details this further in Genealogy... as slave morality often arises out of those who suffer, and fail to disgest the internalization of that suffering. Where as the noble moralities always spring from the triumphant affirmation of ones own demands... (GoM 10).

Indeed. Impact of suffering depends on one's own "health". More than that, "healthy" men move towards suffering because of The Will to Power (will to overcome). But, is it the only way to affirm life? That's the question. Or Nietzsche gave us all possible options?

Thank you for your answer.

Reply to javi2541997 Yup, for me Schopenhauer is right (to some degree) about metaphysics and life itself, but not in his way of dealing with it.

I really gonna take a closer look at Kierkegaard. Thank you.

Quoting kirillov

I inherited some of Schopenhauer's views. In short, life is eternal suffering.

That's not all he said. Nobody seems to pay much attention, but Schop. also believed in some form of redemption. As is well known, he read a translation of the Upani?ads throughout his life, and often referred to Hindu and Buddhist philosophy.

[quote=SEP, Schopenhauer;https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/schopenhauer/#5.3] In a manner reminiscent of traditional Buddhism, he recognizes that life is filled with unavoidable frustration and acknowledges that the suffering caused by this frustration can itself be reduced by minimizing one’s desires. Moral consciousness and virtue thus give way to the voluntary poverty and chastity of the ascetic. St. Francis of Assisi (WWR, Section 68) and Jesus (WWR, Section 70) subsequently emerge as Schopenhauer’s prototypes for the most enlightened lifestyle, in conjunction with the ascetics from every religious tradition.

This emphasis upon the ascetic consciousness and its associated detachment and tranquillity introduces some paradox into Schopenhauer’s outlook...[/quote]

More than some! But regardless, it's important to understand that there was, at least in theory, an end to suffering, comprising the ability to detach from the 'blind striving' of Will (which has been compared to the 'trsna' or 'thirst' which is the cause of suffering in Buddhism. Also Schopenhauer and Buddhism, Peter Abelson.)

Reply to Wayfarer You're right, but that's why I wrote "some of his views".

I think Artur was a great philosopher and had many good points. But, at least, he was wrong about "redemption". I believe one cannot detach from the 'blind striving' of Will, there's only the Will to Life (in Schopenhauer's terms) and nothing else.
That's why I appeal to Nietzsche, he accepts that life is suffering & one cannot escape it (even more, he radicalized this idea into "eternal recurrence"). And tries to find the solution.

Thank you.

Reply to kirillov I too think Schopenhauer was wrong on some things, but not on that.

Reply to kirillov If there is no transcendence of and/or redemption from transitoriness, suffering and death, however, I don't see how and why we should 'affirm' life at the level that Nietzsche would like. We can certainly cherish life but it is also true that without any form of transcendence death has the 'last word' so to speak both for the individual and for our species. Life is a completely tragic phenomenon and the tragedy is amplified the more we affirm it. If we affirm it like 'tragic heroes', it doesn't change the fact that, however, 'death wins'.

Furthermore, the problem with Nietzsche's philosophy is that it is inconsistent here IMO. If the 'highest form of life' is a life where we impose our values and there is no critierion in which we distinguish, in a non-arbitrary manner what is the best way to 'affirm life' then a 'life affirming' stance is no 'better' than a 'life denying' one, as both are said to be manifestations of the 'will to power'. Why should a manifestion of the will to power be better than another if there aren't criteria to tell which is better? In other words, I do not see in Nietzsche's philosophy enough convincing arguments for avoiding a compeletely arbitrary stance of life where absolutely any stance is no better or worse than any other.

Reply to kirillov

Quoting kirillov

0. Suffering is not the problem to solve, but the meaninglessness of it.
1. Aesthetic justification: “It is only as an aesthetic phenomenon that existence and the world are eternally justified.”
2. The Will to Power. Suffering acquires its meaning through overcoming it.

Just to clarify, for Nietzsche suffering is necessary because life is eternal , creative becoming, and suffering is that phase of becoming in which something must be negated in order to move onto a fresh, transformed meaningful perspective on the world. This cycle is endless, and suffering plays a substantive and positive role in the heightening growth of experience.

That the world's "Value lies in our interpretation (- that somewhere else other interpretations than merely human ones may be possible -); that previous interpretations have been perspectival appraisals by means of which we preserve ourselves in life, that is, in the will to power and
to the growth of power; that every heightening of man brings with it an overcoming of narrower interpretations; that every increase in strength and expansion of power opens up new perspectives and demands a belief
in new horizons - this runs though my writings. The world which matters to us is false, i.e., is not a fact but a fictional elaboration and filling out of a meagre store of observations; it is 'in flux', as something becoming, as a
constantly shifting falsity that never gets any nearer to truth, for - there is no 'truth'.

The 'meaninglessness of what happens': belief in this results from an insight into the falseness of previous interpretations, a generalisation of weakness and despondency - it's not a necessary belief.

Looking for objective answers from N is like trying to find non whites at a KKK rally. I think one ought to keep a few aphorisms from BGE in mind when discussing the will to power... namely the term "will" for Nietzsche isnt how tou use it... thats merely the "Sanctas Simplicitas" of the multiplicity of undercurrent and forces that the word represents. First and foremost the will to power are sensations and the will is not a cause... as you portray here.

A summary of one of the four great errors of reason Nietzsche talks about with cause and effect in Twilight of Idols:

For centuries people thought the "will" and the "ego" were genuine causes, facts about consciousness that explained action and responsibility. This is merely a projection of outdated psychology. Modern insight reveals that what we call "the will" doesn't cause action, motives are mere suruface ripples, and the Ego is a fiction of IT ( the body). Humans mistook these illusions for real quantums of force, and we built our metaphysics based upon them and projected it upon the world, turning the Ego into ideal models of "being." Resulting in a massive inherited error: believing in the spirit and the mind as if they were causes via the conception of a "thing in itself..."

Every subterranean force is its own power that commands the body... how they all work together... well, it's a lot to consider, but just because they place demands on the body doesn't mean these actions are even attempted.

The more opposing forces within oneself the greater their will to power is.

Consider Nietzsche saying Life is Music and Life is Will to Power. Certainly doesn't mean music is will to power for everyone. Even though music does affirm the lives of everyone indifferently.

The Birth of Tragedy... out of what? The Spirit of Music...

And Tragedy was the ultimate form of life affirmation to the Greek antiquity.

Every culture has its own music.

The Gay Science...
Literally Nietzsche's works on the knowledge of life affirming gaiety...

Reply to boundless

Quoting boundless

the problem with Nietzsche's philosophy is that it is inconsistent here IMO. If the 'highest form of life' is a life where we impose our values and there is no critierion in which we distinguish, in a non-arbitrary manner what is the best way to 'affirm life' then a 'life affirming' stance is no 'better' than a 'life denying' one, as both are said to be manifestations of the 'will to power'. Why should a manifestion of the will to power be better than another if there aren't criteria to tell which is better? In other words, I do not see in Nietzsche's philosophy enough convincing arguments for avoiding a compeletely arbitrary stance of life where absolutely any stance is no better or worse than any other.

We always have criteria for the best way to affirm life, but those criteria come from within the contingently produced perspectives we create. Within a value system we inhabit for a period of time, perhaps our whole lives, that stance is clearly better than the alternatives. When we transition from one perspectival valuative system to an another, our criteria change along with it.

To assume that one could impose a criterion for the goodness of a value system, the ‘best way’ to affirm life, from outside of all contingent perspectives, a god’s- eye view, view from nowhere or sideways on, is to impose a formula which is meaningless. In Nietzsche’s sense such aesthetic ideals are the definition of nihilism. And given the fact that most of the suffering in this world comes at the hands of those who act on behalf of supposedly perspective-free principles and criteria of truth and righteousness, it may be time to think differently.

Folks keep posting thoughts and comments about Nietzsche or Schopenhauer when the OP clearly stated that their philosophy no longer satisfies him. So, there is no solution for the moment. He just asked us what to read now, not what you guys think about these German boys. :grin:

Reply to javi2541997 Nietzsche says bad readers haven't read him, and his detail of the worst readers fits here (with the OP)... and dude's post is about a solution to his wrong idea on N's philosophy. So maybe stop being a worst reader yourself? I literally spelled it out for him, the solution is affirm the demands of your own life... which is a personal thing, done for centuries before N. N's just the first one to discuss it at least in such a direct manner.

Quoting DifferentiatingEgg

Nietzsche says bad readers haven't read him,

OK.

Reply to javi2541997 byebye *waves*

Those who cannot find their own life affirming path are as Nietzsche details the reason why mankind has become sick...

Let us look each other in the face. We are Hyperboreans—we know well enough how remote our place is. “Neither by land nor by water will you find the road to the Hyperboreans”: even Pindar,[1] in his day, knew that much about us. Beyond the North, beyond the ice, beyond death—our life, our happiness.... We have discovered that happiness; we know the way; we got our knowledge of it from thousands of years in the labyrinth. Who else has found it?—The man of today?—“I don’t know either the way out or the way in; I am whatever doesn’t know either the way out or the way in”—so sighs the man of today.... This is the sort of modernity that made us ill

So more or less you came here out of a compulsion to feel superior when you're mostly a worm who doesn't even understand wtf this guy is asking.

Tsk tsk, twas fun though.

Feel better. xoxo

Quoting DifferentiatingEgg

and dude's post is about a solution to his wrong idea on N's philosophy.

My post is about a solution to my problem. I don't care about correct understanding of Nietzsche's philosophy (it's silly), I interpreted him in the way that can be helpful to work on issue I presented here.
All I did was:
1. Posed the problem.
2. Gave the options that I considered. (I don't say that I interpreted Nietzsche right, that's not my goal)
3. Asked for yours.

I don't expect to have a "ready-made solution" served to me. I just wanted to look at other's people perspective.
Maybe, you should read more carefully. Maybe, I should write less ambiguously.

Peace.

Reply to javi2541997 yup, that's what fascinates me... People just want to fight with each other on who better understands and reads N.

Thank you all.

Reply to kirillov

A life of suffering suggests the absent of its opposites, such as pleasure, joy, or flourishing. But the countless reports of the experiences of these feelings or states suggests their existence. If life can entail the opposite of suffering, life is not suffering.

Reply to kirillov like I said, the solution is you finding your own fucking way... you're just a poor reader...

Otherwise go find a religion to tell you how to think... duh...

And furtherstill...Quoting kirillov

I interpreted him in the way that can be helpful to work on issue I presented here.

No you didn't... you literally said "I don't like N's solution..." so you interpreted his philosophy in a way that wasnt helpful to you at all.

So when you go back to my first post... "Affirm the demands of your life." Obviously went right over your head.

N paved the way for modern understanding of psychology... no psychologist today considers the will a cause...

Maybe pick up psychology and you'll find your solution?

Art?

Music?

Science?

You find it...

Not us for you. That's the cowardly compromise...

Unless of course that's what you want deep down? Some else to lord over you. That's fine, even N says those who thrive in such ways ought to live that way...

Who here knows you enough after 4 posts to even give you a solution to your own problems?

Reply to javi2541997 cough up his solution...

Let's see what you got... a whole lot of nothing, hence you never offered one. Can't use the one I gave (finding his own way).

You didn't even know N's solution... you made one up... N never prescribes a solution. N's solution for himself was music.

Quoting javi2541997

Folks keep posting thoughts and comments about Nietzsche or Schopenhauer when the OP clearly stated that their philosophy no longer satisfies him. So, there is no solution for the moment. He just asked us what to read now, not what you guys think about these German boys. :grin:

Yeah, I see that I also went on to comment excessively on Nietzsche's philosophy. Anyway, in the first paragraph of my response I pointed out that, in my opinion, @kirillov sought to find a way to affirm life in the same degree as Nietzsche did if there is no possibility of transcendence and/or ultimate redemption. If that is what they were asking, I believe that a more rational way to approach life would be something like the Epicurean model. That is cherishing and delighting in life in moderation, i.e. we should remind ourselves that life is finite and try to avoid to attach to it too much importance.

I do believe that, if there aren't any kind of trascendence and/or redemption, ultimately, life is quite a tragic endeavour where death has the 'last word'.

Quoting Joshs

To assume that one could impose a criterion for the goodness of a value system, the ‘best way’ to affirm life, from outside of all contingent perspectives, a god’s- eye view, view from nowhere or sideways on, is to impose a formula which is meaningless. In Nietzsche’s sense such aesthetic ideals are the definition of nihilism. And given the fact that most of the suffering in this world comes at the hands of those who act on behalf of supposedly perspective-free principles and criteria of truth and righteousness, it may be time to think differently.

While I would say that there are some things that are always morally good or bad, I also think that in some cases it is context dependent. Anyway, my point is different.

If, according to Nietzsche, all manifestations of life are manifestations of the 'will to power', and there is no ultimate 'right' or 'wrong' way to manifest it (someone in the classical tradition would perhaps say that the 'right' way is what fulfills the nature of the will, but Nietzsche rejects that), it is somewhat inconsistent to write books glorifying some way of living and criticizing others. You would expect that Nietzsche would say something like: "ultimately, there are different forms of the will to power. There is no good or bad ways to express such a willing/power. So, do what you want to do without any 'moral' concern!". Instead, he wrote many books to show how inadequate were religions, especially Christainity.

Mind you, I think that Nietzsche had pretty interesting things to say (e.g. about how resentment works and can condition our thoughts, about creativity and so on). But his extreme 'voluntarism', expressed in his mature 'amoralism' and 'will to power' etc is IMO more consistent with an empty philosophy rather than a philosophy that can teach a 'way of life'. To put it differently, the 'pars destruens' was so pervasive than no 'pars construens' seems consistent with it, not his.

Quoting DifferentiatingEgg

No you didn't... you literally said "I don't like N's solution..." so you interpreted his philosophy in a way that wasnt helpful to you at all.

I said that I'm not satisfied, I didn't say that I don't like his solution. And what makes you think that his solution wasn't helpful? I think that the only poor reader here is you.

Quoting DifferentiatingEgg

You didn't even know N's solution... you made one up... N never prescribes a solution. N's solution for himself was music.

Where did I say that he prescribes a solution?
As I said, I don't ask you to solve my problem, what I did was ask you how you would solve/solved this problem for yourself.
But you just want to yell nonsense. And Nietzsche's solution for himself wasn't music.

Quoting boundless

Yeah, I see that I also went on to comment excessively on Nietzsche's philosophy. Anyway, in the first paragraph of my response I pointed out that, in my opinion, kirillov sought to find a way to affirm life in the same degree as Nietzsche did if there is no possibility of transcendence and/or ultimate redemption. If that is what they were asking, I believe that a more rational way to approach life would be something like the Epicurean model. That is cherishing and delighting in life in moderation, i.e. we should remind ourselves that life is finite and try to avoid to attach to it too much importance.

Also, if death means the definitive separation between people that are dear to us, the rational way to process the separation is with grief. Because by grieving we recognize the intrinsic value of these persons and we recognize that value is now irrimediably lost. So, it would seem that without any hope of transcendence and/or redemption it is impossible to avoid to suffer and attain any kind of solid happiness.

Reply to boundless , appreciate you for your response.

Quoting boundless

I believe that a more rational way to approach life would be something like the Epicurean model. That is cherishing and delighting in life in moderation, i.e. we should remind ourselves that life is finite and try to avoid to attach to it too much importance.

For me, life (in general) isn't finite. In Buddhist word's, Samsara will make another turn.
And there's situations where you can't avoid/moderate pain & suffering (that's what I'm dealing with) , so Epicurus is not for me.

What about Nietzsche... I don't want to discuss him at this thread, because that's not the point of it.
And my interpretation of him radically differs from mainstream.

Quoting boundless

So, it would seem that without any hope of transcendence and/or redemption it is impossible to avoid to suffer and attain any kind of solid happiness.

I know that suffering is unavoidable. As I said: "life is eternal suffering".
My goal is to affirm it, accept it. To love this life despite all the suffering it entails.

Quoting kirillov

What about Nietzsche... I don't want to discuss him at this thread, because that's not the point of it.
And my interpretation of him radically differs from mainstream

Ok!

Quoting kirillov

For me, life (in general) isn't finite. In Buddhist word's, Samsara will make another turn.

Ok. But notice that religions that accept samsara generally posit some kind of transcendence of the transitoriness, suffering, death present in it. They do not 'affirm life' by accepting death, suffering etc but they generally try to find a 'way out'. That's why detachment is generally a common attitude you find in them (as well as compassion for other beings trapped in the prison of samsara).


Quoting kirillov

And there's situations where you can't avoid/moderate pain & suffering (that's what I'm dealing with) , so Epicurus is not for me.

Agreed. But in a purely 'secular' worldview, I would say it is the best approach. Suffering can't be eliminated or even reduced in certain circumstances and, in fact, Epicurus also suggested to find way to make it more bearable.

I find Epicurus' philosophy depressing in a way but I do think that given the assumptions of his worldview is the most rational.


FWIW, I am sorry for your situation BTW. I hope it will get better.

Quoting kirillov

I know that suffering is unavoidable. As I said: "life is eternal suffering".
My goal is to affirm it, accept it. To love this life despite all the suffering it entails.

Well, as I said, religions that accepted samasara generally tried to escape and not 'affirm' samsaric life. If we are indeed in samsara and we can't transcend it, I think that 'affirming' it inevitably will make samsara worse. We can't transform samsara in a positive state.

There is a reason why historically the 'escape' from samsara was put in term of knowing a 'higher reality' and/or recognizing that is a sort of illusion and so on rather than try to see it in a more 'affirming' way.

Quoting boundless

Ok. But notice that religions that accept samsara generally posit some kind of transcendence of the transitoriness, suffering, death present in it. They do not 'affirm life' by accepting death, suffering etc but they generally try to find a 'way out'. That's why detachment is generally a common attitude you find in them (as well as compassion for other beings trapped in the prison of samsara).

I've used Samsara as analogy, not literally.
1. Life, in general, is eternal. Not life of one particular individual, but in general.
2. Life is suffering. One's life, by pure luck, can be pretty good in absent of pain in suffering. But that's not the case overall.
3. Life cannot be escaped.

And the problem is: how one, given three premises above, affirms life as it is?
I hope I clarified the question.

Thanks.

Reply to kirillov Thanks for the clarification.

Quoting kirillov

1. Life, in general, is eternal. Not life of one particular individual, but in general.

This is a questionable premise. Scientific evidence, in fact, suggest that life 'in general' will end. But I am open to think that science might not tell us the whole story here.

So, for the sake of the discussion, let's say that you are right.

Quoting kirillov

2. Life is suffering. One's life, by pure luck, can be pretty good in absent of pain in suffering. But that's not the case overall.

Again, you are assuming that all instances of life are just like this. I believe that you reject those views that tell that there is a reasonable hope (for them) that there will be a better state.
Again, I'll grant you the validity of the premise to see where we go.

Quoting kirillov

3. Life cannot be escaped.

OK.

Quoting kirillov

And the problem is: how one, given three premises above, affirms life as it is?

OK. Honestly, I would say it depends on the ability that the 'living beings' might have to control and reduce the amount of purposeless suffering, i.e. suffering that doesn't lead to something postive.
If, however, life will be always in a situation where negative states overcome positive states and there is absolutely no hope to change that, I would say that one can't rationally affirm 'life'.

So if your three premises are right, then, no, I would not think that it would be rational to affirm life, as it is irrational to affirm a state dominated by purposeless suffering.

Reply to boundless Reply to boundless

Quoting boundless

If, according to Nietzsche, all manifestations of life are manifestations of the 'will to power', and there is no ultimate 'right' or 'wrong' way to manifest it (someone in the classical tradition would perhaps say that the 'right' way is what fulfills the nature of the will, but Nietzsche rejects that), it is somewhat inconsistent to write books glorifying some way of living and criticizing others.

Mind you, I think that Nietzsche had pretty interesting things to say (e.g. about how resentment works and can condition our thoughts, about creativity and so on). But his extreme 'voluntarism', expressed in his mature 'amoralism' and 'will to power' etc is IMO more consistent with an empty philosophy rather than a philosophy that can teach a 'way of life'. To put it differently, the 'pars destruens' was so pervasive than no 'pars construens' seems consistent with it, not his.

Human beings are pattern-seekers. That is how we are able to function in a world which never repeats itself identically from one moment to the next. We have to have a way of anticipating what is coming next in spite of the constant flux we are presented with. Older ways of thinking in philosophy and the sciences dealt with this challenge by carving up the world on the basis of categories. There were now law-governed objects and causal relations that it was our job to properly represent. Nietzsche was among those who attempted to show the dangers of taking the changing patterns we experience in our world and freezing them into such mathematical identities and absolutes. He tried to show that we do the same thing with moral values as we do with empirical objects, and the result has been endless wars and violence over what is right and what is wrong.

Nietzsche’s argument was that trying to locate a value system with the right CONTENT could lead to nothing but nihilism. This didn’t mean that he abandoned all possibilities of distinguishing what is a better way of life from what is worse. What he did was to separate this issue from the particular content of meaning of specific value systems. Instead of focusing on arriving at a final correct content of knowledge or values, our focus should be on accelerating the process of moving through value systems. Process , not content. And speed, not depth of foundation. The best way of living is that which can enjoy the delights of creative becoming and re-invention in the most optimal fashion, which means keeping itself free from repressive attachments to content-based absolutes and foundations of all kinds. He recognized this as an enormous challenge, because we are precisely NOT volunteristic in our decisions.

Contrary to Sartre, the will is not free to choose whatever it wants to choose. We find ourselves choosing, we are driven to choose. This lack of volunteristic freedom is the result of the fact that the psyche is a society of competing drives, and the self is an amalgam of such competing forces. It’s hard to be volunteristic when the ego is a mere byproduct of a play of drives. In addition. the psyche isn’t walled off from the social sphere, but is intertwined with it. As a result, we always find ourselves immersed in larger normative cultural structures, and thus we always run the risk of becoming entrenched within norms that eventually suffocate and repress. We thrive on recognizing patterns , regularities and norms from within the flux, but Nietzsche suggested how we could allow ourselves the intense pleasure of such creative ordering while steering clear of the tendencies to ossify such assimilating activity into life and meaning-destroying certainties. And we can get better and better over time at allowing the creative future to flow into the present. This seems to me to be a promising , growth-oriented way of life. If it is empty, it is only empty of content-based prescriptions, as I think it should be.

Quoting kirillov

How can life be justified in spite of all the suffering it entails?

I have a couple of different ideas from my own thoughts and experience. However suffering is part of life so the justification would be just as much part of 'why should one keep living?' and as such some of my ideas are pointed more towards that.
First, I have quite a chaotic idea of my own. Think of a video game, you only have one life, and everything besides this game is darkness.
The only thing you have is that one game, one life. There is no reason not to play. This completely ignores any religion though.
If you return to nothingness without life, is there any reason not to live even if you suffer.
Second, is one most personal to me. I was listening to music and there was a line that went something like, 'to live as me.' It hit me in a very impactful way. The idea of living a life without living as me was horrible. (This has more to do with how to live)
It gave me such a feeling of freedom and confidence in even my own life.
Third, is something I received from a religious leader I met. He told me that God created evil so people can be good. That God created sin so people had freedom. That God gave hope so people can overcome odds.
Following this logic, you might be able to find your own answer.
Fourth is another original idea. If you consider the garden of Eden as perfection, with its eternal bliss and innocence. Then consider the state we are in now. Suffering would be our motivation towards perfection.
That's all I can say now. I hope you consider that all of these ideas have helped my life. So I would say there is some weight behind the,. That is not to say that I would stubbornly ignore any words that would counter them.

Quoting Joshs

This didn’t mean that he abandoned all possibilities of distinguishing what is a better way of life from what is worse. What he did was to separate this issue from the particular content of meaning of specific value systems.

Right. But what is the 'basis' of the 'better' or the 'worse'? Here's what, for instance, Nietzsche said in Beyond Good and Evil, 259:

259. To refrain mutually from injury, from violence, from exploitation, and put one's will on a par with that of others: this may result in a certain rough sense in good conduct among individuals when the necessary conditions are given (namely, the actual similarity of the individuals in amount of force and degree of worth, and their co-relation within one organization). As soon, however, as one wished to take this principle more generally, and if possible even as the FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE OF SOCIETY, it would immediately disclose what it really is--namely, a Will to the DENIAL of life, a principle of dissolution and decay. Here one must think profoundly to the very basis and resist all sentimental weakness: life itself is ESSENTIALLY appropriation, injury, conquest of the strange and weak, suppression, severity, obtrusion of peculiar forms, incorporation, and at the least, putting it mildest, exploitation;--but why should one for ever use precisely these words on which for ages a disparaging purpose has been stamped? Even the organization within which, as was previously supposed, the individuals treat each other as equal--it takes place in every healthy aristocracy--must itself, if it be a living and not a dying organization, do all that towards other bodies, which the individuals within it refrain from doing to each other it will have to be the incarnated Will to Power, it will endeavour to grow, to gain ground, attract to itself and acquire ascendancy-- not owing to any morality or immorality, but because it LIVES, and because life IS precisely Will to Power. On no point, however, is the ordinary consciousness of Europeans more unwilling to be corrected than on this matter, people now rave everywhere, even under the guise of science, about coming conditions of society in which "the exploiting character" is to be absent--that sounds to my ears as if they promised to invent a mode of life which should refrain from all organic functions. "Exploitation" does not belong to a depraved, or imperfect and primitive society it belongs to the nature of the living being as a primary organic function, it is a consequence of the intrinsic Will to Power, which is precisely the Will to Life--Granting that as a theory this is a novelty--as a reality it is the FUNDAMENTAL FACT of all history let us be so far honest towards ourselves!

So, it seems to me, that for Nietzsche whatever 'favours' the expression of the 'will to power', which he equated with 'life', is 'good' and whatever 'hinders' the 'will to power' is 'bad'. Right here we have Nietzsche making quite an 'absolute' statement about what is 'good' and what is 'bad'.
Morality, religion and so on were wrong for Nietzsche becauese, according to him, they hindered 'life'. Due to the fact that 'life' is often difficult, there is conflict in the world and so on, according to Nietzsche many (all?) religious figures, for instance, sought and taught a 'way to liberation' or 'salvation'. For him this is 'bad' because, in fact, they were trying to hinder the expression of life.

So, I'm not sure that Nietzsche was actually a 'relativist' in the way he is often depicted. But, at the same time, he also thought that this world is in flux and there are countless ways in which the 'life'/'will to power' can manifest. So, the creative artist is a perfect example of how the 'will to power' can manifest and hindering the artist is hindering the will to power. But also the conqueror, the social reformer and so on can be manifestations of the 'will to power' (this doesn't imply that Nietzsche was a monist or a pantheist/panentheist of some sorts, as the 'will to power' might not be a single entity. Interestingly, however, in his notebooks made a statement that suggest precisely this*).

So, in any case, if what is 'good' for the life can change radically, why, say, some 'life-denying' morality could not, in some times, be a legitimate way of the expression of life? Same goes for resentiment?

Ironically, despite his 'relativistic' fame, Nietzsche seemed pretty convinced that some expressions of human life were just 'bad'. Yet, I agree this is inconsistent with his thesis that this world is a 'radical flux' where nothing is really fixed. But if this 'radical flux' was the 'ultimate truth' in Nietzsche, then this would made a lot of his philosophical analysis (think about his analysis of 'resentment' and the historical importance that it had according to him) at least questionable if not completely empty. There is a tension present in Nietzsche philosophy. I think that this is indicates a deep inconsistency in his thinking: on one hand he wants to affirm that 'good' is what what favours the expression of life and 'bad' is what goes against life. On the other hand, however, his thesis that nothing remains the same, renders such a statement, ultimately, vacuous IMO.

Quoting Joshs

And we can get better and better over time at allowing the creative future to flow into the present. This seems to me to be a promising , growth-oriented way of life. If it is empty, it is only empty of content-based prescriptions, as I think it should be.

Where does he say this? I think that one of his 'Untimely mediation' was actually against the idea of 'progress'. And also in later years he didn't think that the future will be 'better' than the present. Could you provide some references?
In fact, it seems the idea that we 'should' seek a 'better future' goes against many things he says. For him, the will to power doesn't have a 'purpose', it is like an innocent play (see the quote below).

*Here's the quote:

That the world is divine play [göttliches Spiel] beyond good and evil?for this, my predecessors are the philosophy of Vedanta and Heraclitus. (NF 1884)

(source, e.g.: https://api.research-repository.uwa.edu.au/ws/portalfiles/portal/49665695/TH19_143_THESIS_DOCTOR_OF_PHILOSOPHY_MILNE_Andrew_William_2019.pdf)

Reply to Joshs Also, for the 'voluntaristic' part, I disagree but I admit that his voluntarism is quite strange as he questions the existence of the 'agents' that will or, as you say, see the agents as fragmentary.

In any case, he IMO was pretty clear that all geniune manifestations of 'life'/'will to power' were 'innocent', like an innocent play, and morality (whether religious, civil etc) was something that constrained the manifestion of that innocent play. Nietzsche was, of course, aware that in the world these 'plays' inevitably conflitct (both in the natural world and among humans). Conflict is inevitable but for Nietzsche this is not a bad thing. It is actually good (if it is not motivated by some kind of 'morality' or 'resentment' that constrains the will to power).

Clearly he was inspired by Heraclitus, e.g. (see here: https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Fragments_of_Heraclitus ):

Time is a child playing draughts, the kingly power is a child's (fragment 52)

War is the father of all and the king of all; and some he has made gods and some men, some bond and some free. (fragment 53)

We must know that war is common to all and strife is justice, and that all things come into being and pass away (?) through strife. (fragment 80)

Already in 1873 in his unpublished work 'Philosophy in the Tragic Age of the Greeks' Nietzsche contrasted Heraclitus with Anaximander by saying that Anaximander thought that the conflict between extremes was an 'injustice' whereas Heraclitus viewed it as the expression of 'justice' (strife is justice).

Why I believe it is 'voluntaristic'? Because Nietzsche didn't distinguish between good ways in which life manifests itself and bad. Simply, whatever the will wills is good. The only bad thing is to hinder the manifestions of the will.

Reply to boundless

Quoting boundless

Why I believe it is 'voluntaristic'? Because Nietzsche didn't distinguish between good ways in which life manifests itself and bad. Simply, whatever the will wills is good. The only bad thing is to hinder the manifestions of the

My reading of volunterisric doesn’t depend on removing the distinction between good and bad. It has to do with a metaphysical notion of the will wherein the will is a unitary substance that is in control of what it wills, and can reflective turn back to itself as this same identical will, the view that human action is ultimately self-determined by an inner power of choice or volition. For Nietzsche the will is not a single entity capable of pure self-reflection. One doesn’t choose (volunteer) to will what one wants to will. Instead, one finds oneself willing. One is as much the slave of one’s will as the controller of it.

“The 'I' (which is not the same thing as the unitary government of our being!) is, after all, only a conceptual synthesis - thus there is no acting from 'egoism‘.

There are still harmless self-observers who believe in the existence of “immediate certainties,” such as “I think,” or the “I will” that was Schopenhauer's superstition:

… a thought comes when “it” wants, and not when “I” want. It is, therefore, a falsification of the facts to say that the subject “I” is the condition of the predicate “think.” It thinks: but to say the “it” is just that famous old “I” – well that is just an assumption or opinion, to put it mildly, and by no means an “immediate certainty.” In fact, there is already too much packed into the “it thinks”: even the “it” contains an interpretation of the process, and does not belong to the process itself.

Perhaps what you mean to argue is that for Nietzsche, like for Schopenhauer, the will is unconscious and irrational. It has no reason or purpose, and it does not choose in any moral or rational sense. What then makes Schopenhauer’s will volunteristic is that , unlike Nietzsche, he believes the will is universal and metaphysical; a singular, unified essence behind all phenomena.

Reply to Joshs Well, sort of what you say about Schopenhauer.
By 'voluntarism', I mean a position that gives prominence to the will. So, for instance, the mere ability to excercise the will is 'freedom' in a voluntaristic system. I'll try to clarify what I meant by talking about the concept of freedom.

So, the mere ability to act in concordance with the will is what 'freedom'. Morality, according to Nietzsche, hinders that ability by constraining it with rules and this is why it is so bad. As I understand him, imposing on ourselves and others 'moral rules' suffocates disables the ability to act according to the will. Rather, Nietzsche would suggest, we should accept to live without putting constraints on the will and accept the suffering that such a way of life entails (due to, say, the conflict that inevitably happens).

This is clearly a different understanding on the ancient model of freedom (that you can find both in non-Christian and Christian philosophers of that time) according to which, in the case of rational beings, only a will that knows the 'good' is truly free and finds fulfillment. Nietzsche would say that such an understanding of freedom because all modes of willing, if they are not constrained by something else, are 'good'.

If this clarification didn't help, try to read my previous response ignoring the adjective 'voluntaristic'. I don't think that it is essential to understand what I wrote.

Reply to kirillov

If you liked Nietzsche I would give Dostoevsky a try. In a lot of ways they have very similar biographies and personalities. Nietzsche was a tremendous fan of Dostoevsky as well. And yet in key ways they could hardly be more different.

Notes from the Underground is a good starting point because it is quite short and less meandering than a lot of his work. Nietzsche was also a huge admirer of that work in particular, although one might suspect on this point that he wasn't totally getting what Dostoevsky was trying to lay down, since, for all their similarities, they come to radically different conclusions about ethics, suffering, happiness, and Christianity. The Brothers Karamazov is his great classic, but it's also a pretty mammoth tome.

Now, understanding the tradition Dostoevsky is coming out of is much harder. I cannot think of a good work that sums it up. It's a sort of project to digest for sure. The book Orthodox Psychotherapy is a good one though.

Another classic that looks at suffering and happiness is Boethius Consolation of Philosophy. It's a charming book that blends together the "first medicine" of Stoicism, which paves the way for the "second medicine," the Platonic ascent as informed by Aristotle, Plotinus, Saint Augustine, etc.

Quoting boundless

So, the mere ability to act in concordance with the will is what 'freedom'. Morality, according to Nietzsche, hinders that ability by constraining it with rules and this is why it is so bad. As I understand him, imposing on ourselves and others 'moral rules' suffocates disables the ability to act according to the will. Rather, Nietzsche would suggest, we should accept to live without putting constraints on the will and accept the suffering that such a way of life entails (due to, say, the conflict that inevitably happens).

We are always acting in accordance with the will, for Nietzsche. More specifically, we are always acting according to the will to power. All motivations and desires, including will to knowledge and traditional morality, are forms of will to power. The will to power can take ‘unhealthy’ forms which are antithetical to life. These don’t put constraints on the will; rather, they represent a ‘will to self-constraint’. Morality is an example of this will which turns its power against itself. Even so, in negating becoming, morality still represents a strategy for survival, albeit a ‘sick’ one.

Reply to boundless

Quoting boundless

So, in any case, if what is 'good' for the life can change radically, why, say, some 'life-denying' morality could not, in some times, be a legitimate way of the expression of life? Same goes for resentiment?

When Nietzsche uses the word ‘life’ , he doesn’t mean it in a conventional biological sense. For instance, he rejected what he interpreted as the Darwinian principle of self-preservation. A life-denying morality is indeed a strategy of self-preservation for Nietzsche, but it is not what he means by will to life. Morality is a restriction of the will to life, and therefore is not ‘good’ for life. It is only good for survival.

“Darwin absurdly overestimates the influence of 'external circumstances'; the essential thing about the life process is precisely the tremendous force which shapes, creates form from within, which utilizes and exploits 'external circumstances' ... -that the new forms created from within are not shaped with a purpose in view, but that in the struggle of the parts, it won't be long before a new form begins to relate to a partial usefulness, and then develops more and more completely according to how it is used.” “Everything that lives is exactly what shows most clearly that it does everything possible not to preserve itself but to become more ...” (Last Notebooks)

The struggle for survival is only an exception, a temporary restriction of the will to life; the great and small struggle revolves everywhere around preponderance, around growth and expansion, around power and in accordance with the will to power, which is simply the will to life. (The Gay Science)

Quoting boundless

I think that one of his 'Untimely mediation' was actually against the idea of 'progress'. And also in later years he didn't think that the future will be 'better' than the present. Could you provide some references?
In fact, it seems the idea that we 'should' seek a 'better future' goes against many things he says. For him, the will to power doesn't have a 'purpose', it is like an innocent play (see the quote below).

I agree that the will to power doesn’t have a specific contentful purpose. But Nietzsche believed in a progress of strength, consciousness, and perspective; a will to power manifesting as creative overcoming. Growth, strength, and expansion of power lead to richer perspectives, the overcoming previous limitations and a dynamic reinterpretation of the world. Rather simply determining historical ideas and cultural types as ‘good or ‘bad’ he ranked them according to a hierarchy relative to his notion of progress.

“That every heightening of man brings with it an overcoming of narrower interpretations; that every increase in strength and expansion of power opens up new perspectives and demands a belief in new horizons—this runs through my writings.”

Reply to Joshs Ok, I see thanks for the clarification. To me, however, all this means that Nietzsche believed in some 'objective' morality of some sorts. If there are 'sick' and 'heal' ways in which the will can express itself and we can know this, it seems to me that an objective or at least 'inter-subjective' basis for ethics/morality (i.e. 'how to live'). This would mean that Nietzsche wasn't a relativist after all, despite what sometimes he claimed and what how some interpreters read him.

Also it is useful to remember that not all 'objective ethical theories' consider ethics as a purely extrinsic set of rules with no relation to our 'nature'. In fact, many of them regard 'ethical rules' as a way to 'heal' the will or to express the will in a 'healthy way'.

I think that many of Nietzsche criticisms apply to ethical systems where ethics is a purely extrinsic set of rules. It is questionable if they really apply to other ethical systems.

Reply to Count Timothy von Icarus , I appreciate you, but I've read almost all of his works. And more than that, I've come from the tradition from which Dostoevsky came.

Quoting kirillov

How can life be justified in spite of all the suffering it entails?

I don’t know - if there is no miracle coming, and life was intentionally inflicted on us, then maybe it can’t be justified. If life is a big accident, then it doesn’t have to be justified.

But I don’t know, besides God.

Do you wish you never suffered at all, and no one else did, or do you wish that you and everyone else never suffered again?

If you only wish you had suffered less, that is not the question and so not an answer. We already do suffer less, and more, as each comes and goes.

But do you wish to never have suffered at all, or do you wish to live with relief that is permanent and thorough?