Completely agree.

Most definitely a compliment. You used it in a previous thread. Perfect word to describe the scientism of today.

:)

Agustino, I'm going to copy-paste what I wrote the other night on a different philosophy forum over on Reddit regarding the relationship between science and philosophy:

This might be an unpopular opinion, and if you disagree I would love to hear your arguments. But honestly, many philosophers need to stop being so obsequious to scientists. I don't think scientists need philosophers to get by. I love philosophy as much as anyone else here, but I can't help but cringe when philosophers feel the need to justify their field or force it into a field. (Ornithologist-bird analogy). Scientists aren't worried about those questions.
People who say philosophy is worthless are philistines. Philosophy is great in coming up with interesting questions, but bad at answering them, which isn't a stab at philosophy, it's just the nature of the questions (as far as we know). They are outside the realm of empirical observation. But it needs to keep up to date with contemporary science, in case science happens to burst into the bubble of philosophy unexpectedly. But contemporary science doesn't necessary have to keep up with philosophy because science will keep plugging and chugging regardless.
The scientific method is a well-established method of obtaining data even if the operator is incompetent in analyzing it. But philosophy requires someone to have the cognitive capabilities to be able to analyze data like that and make interesting conclusions about it. And possibly this is a counterargument to my argument, that fields like theoretical physics rely on data to make theories, just like...philosophy?
But sometimes I often wonder if one day much of philosophy will become irrelevant, or a product of the past, kicked in the dust by the verifiable and reliable scientific method, which seems to be what is happening here.

(EDIT:)

I think philosophy has the potential to be applied, but I'm not sure if it has the potential to find "truth" (which is a metaphilosophical question itself). Can any system of inquiry find "truth", other than the Heideggerian way of knowing "how" to do something, like a blacksmith knows how to melt steel? But anyway, back to the point, political and ethical philosophy are definitely some examples of how philosophy has been applied. Just look at the Cold War, an ideological conflict. But in these cases, these people don't know that they are right, they just are very self-assured that they are right and feel concerns around them motivating them to act upon this assurance.
This is the problem with consulting someone who is an expert in philosophy, other than being able to explain the subject: there is no consensus on things.
Now, both a scientific and a philosophical theory have a potential to be disproven, the former by evidence and the latter by rational argument (or evidence as well I suppose). The issue is that in science, the data is collected, evidence presented, theories stacked against each other until we come to a consensus. This may take decades. But it happens. Often. With great success. You can go to Biologist A for an explanation of Darwinian Evolution and you will get the same explanation if you go to Biologist B.
But in philosophy, like I described above, there is no "philosophical method" that everybody follows and will get the same results. Theories abound and nobody ever seems to come together to a consensus. So how on earth can someone go to a philosopher for advice? Going to Philosopher A for an explanation for the problem of universals in metaphysics will give you one of many realist explanations, while going to Philosopher B will give you one of many nominalist explanations.
I can't understand how philosophers say they are needed in the process of science when science requires consensus on matters that philosophers cannot decide upon. This isn't a jab at philosophers or philosophy itself, but merely shows the limitations of the field.
I honestly think philosophers should not go into research wondering how it can be applied to the real world; to do this is the limit the scope of the field and make it philistine. I think philosophy should be something that is pursued for the sake of our own curiosity, not because it can yield results. But sometimes I find this answer to be lacking. :\

(EDIT 2):

I think I might have committed a self-defeating argument here, because theoretically if everyone agrees with me in my argument above, then technically philosophy has progressed. whoops. Maybe it's just very, very rare for it to progress.

, credit goes to you for the inspiration for the term "philistine".

I think we differ completely, then, on our conception of the mind. I come from a computationalist perspective.

For what it's worth, Schop, I've found many of your posts to be most illuminating.

The argument presented by the essayist is that NPCs can display actions to try to prevent "death" (i.e. a sleep state), which is argued to be not-preferable to the NPC.

Aren't we just machines as well?

Seems like it would be an interesting idea to compare the two philosophies. But I dislike these MMA championship-like smackdowns of other philosophies, the "my philosophy's better than yours'". It's not very productive.

But yes, Stoicism and Buddhism are very similar, I would even say they might be compatible in some areas. But Stoics traditionally argued for a teleology of the universe, and that rationality led to flourishing. While Buddhists (philosophically) don't argue for any teleological things (they leave that alone), and think that more emotional thinking is the path to contentedness (that's not to say Buddhists can't do philosophy, they just don't think reason will inherently lead to happiness).

But... pain, suffering, dissatisfaction, thirst, hunger--all those conditions where "things" are out of balance or intensely unpleasant, whether they be transitory or permanent — Bitter Crank

This is very Buddhist.

I agree that the physical pain can and should be relieved.

From what I got from your response is that existential pains are contingent upon the mentality of the individual. How much of that mentality requires willful ignorance, if any?

What is the motivation to "do something"? — schopenhauer1

Presumably this would be because one desires an outcome that would only happen if one does something. These desires are more important than the potential suffering that may come about with it.

I'm also shocked at how many handwaves are being done regarding Stoicism. I don't know too much about Stoicism myself, I admit, but from the people who proclaim they do, they aren't really providing many sources. Both sides here.

Well, there's a difference between discussing pessimism and breeding pessimism. Neither or us seem to be doing the latter so I think we're okay.

except not complaining too much. — schopenhauer1

Which actually does quite a bit, to be honest. To complain to the actualize your discomfort and spread it to others like a plague.

I just don't think people will think like that. People will not be happy with the inconvenience or annoyance. — schopenhauer1

I think it's more about being in a better state than one is currently in right now. Stoicism may not make you Captain Optimism, but it might just make you a bit less grim.

My problem with stoicism I guess, isn't necessarily whether it helps people (whether by delusion, habituation, or otherwise), but that pain is elusive in ways that stoicism doesn't necessarily solve. — schopenhauer1

Schop, I'm not sure if Stoicism ever claimed to be able to solve these problems. This might be an issue of individuals claiming they've found loopholes. As far as I'm aware, Stoicism is about nurturing the virtuous life, not necessarily mitigating suffering. It just happens that it does it fairly well for many people.

Stoicism isn't going to stop a branch from falling and breaking your leg, for example. But it can help with how you deal with the situation, and oftentimes how you deal with a situation directly influences how much you actually suffer (runaway emotions like despair).

the scorn that I didn't use examples of "real" pain — schopenhauer1

Losing your phone is a good example of pain. Pain caused by loss. Buddhism happens to also have a lot to say on this (attachments).

What really will happen is a series of annoying events that follows.. — schopenhauer1

Personally, I'm under the impression that life itself is usually a big annoyance. That's the whole point of philosophies like Stoicism and Buddhism and the like.

he never followed it himself! — schopenhauer1

This is the biggest turn-off for me for Schopenhauer. I respect his philosophy and agree with many of the things he wrote, but man was he a dick and antithetical to the "compassionate ascetic" he championed. It made me look for more inspiring and "role model" philosophers like Camus and the Buddha.

I honestly don't think "stoicism" really works. — schopenhauer1

I'm still kind of having a hard time understanding "why" exactly you don't think Stoicism works.

Whether in hindsight, one has mental techniques, visualizations, and ideologies that try to mitigate the pain, does not make the fact that it is there in the first place go away. It is continual and ceaseless. — schopenhauer1

I agree with you here. No need to reproduce.

This also goes into another thing of temperament, predispositions, and environments. — schopenhauer1

These are always in change. Don't trick yourself into thinking that your temperament (whatever that may be) will always be that way or has to be that way.

Not all "treatments" for pain are going to work the same on everyone and what might work for one might not work on another person. — schopenhauer1

I think you pretty much just summed up the entire thread, then. /thread?

I feel like images are helpful to people who want a direction to point them in, but ultimately they can be disastrous to the learning of the pupil. It's far too easy to simplify complex ideas and ignore important areas for the sake of aesthetic appeal.

And when I brought up the likelihood of those millions of people being deluded in that respect, given evidence to the contrary, he mistakenly took that to be the fallacy of appealing to the masses. Of course, masses of people have turned out to be deluded in various respects throughout history, but we can still make a reasonable assessment given various factors: the content of the belief, the number of people that beleive it and the basis for their belief, the available evidence... — Sapientia

In this specific case, an appeal to the masses is actually a logical argument, because if Stoicism didn't work, nobody would have followed it. It's why using the same appeal for a suicide cult doesn't work at all...since they're all dead.

And Stoicism wasn't a religion, either, so it's not like they were deluded or anything. It was exactly meant for dealing with suffering, and people decided to go with it if it worked for them.

But if you want to know why there is suffering to begin with — The Great Whatever

I would answer by referring to

If you ask what the cause of suffering is, on the one hand you could just list particular things that make people suffer. — The Great Whatever

What causes suffering is sufficient to explain why it is here. Like you said, much of suffering is unnecessary. Much of it could be avoided.

Of course, it's arrogant to claim a position is wrong, but not to claim that it's right (which is, in effect, to claim that another one is wrong). 'Intelligent' people believe whatever you please: it's beneath a philosopher to appeal to authority and/or popularity. I think everyone upset in this thread knows that, but on the other hand has literally no better defense. — The Great Whatever

What a load of rubbish. tgw, it's not arrogant to claim a position is wrong, nor is it arrogant to claim is position is right (stop martyring yourself). This is a philosophy forum for Pete's sake. It's only arrogant, no, silly, to claim a position is wrong without any real arguments.

Insulting someone is the last refuge of a person with no argument. — The Great Whatever

So is martyrdom.

I'd like to suggest a somewhat silly but actually quite interesting essay: Do Video-Game Characters Matter Morally?.

An additional question to provoke discussion: how convincing do you find the argument that a supposed "holy man's" (such as Jesus or Mohammad) philosophical beliefs prove their divinity? For example, Jesus was a pretty radical person back in the days of 1st century BCE Roman Judea, and reading the Bible, I have to admit that many of the things he does and says are quiet altruistic, such as buying only two swords so that he will be caught as an enemy of the state. It makes me wonder sometimes how a man could possibly have come up with that many progressive morals while living in a time of crucifixion and stoning.

Tanha can be mitigated, though. So why wouldn't you try to lower the amount of discomfort one feels?

When I meant nirvana, I meant the achievement of Buddha-hood, of stopping rebirth, or becoming that sage-like master, so to speak. I don't think this is possible. Also I don't think reincarnation is plausible. It is useful as a concept, though, like you said.

I was drawn to Buddhism because of the "Middle Path" it advocated between extreme sensual pleasures and extreme asceticism. I like it as a philosophy because I can live my life in a much more peaceful, calm, and happy way without actually changing much in terms of actual lifestyle; i.e. I don't have to join a temple, live on a mountain, reject all sensual pleasures (asceticism), etc. I would characterize Buddhism as a philosophy of balance and understanding, one that stems from compassion and a desire for the end of suffering.

Buddhism, and all forms of yogic spirituality, understand mind as citta, which has certain innate qualities and attributes. These are generally obscured by vritti or by vikalpa which are habituated mental patterns and constructions; basically, just the continual play of thoughts. And those thoughts go a long way to constituting our day to day existence. So sitting meditation is simply learning to be aware of those - that is all. Just to see them as they are. In some ways it's simple, but it's not that easy, because our habituated attitudes have a life of their own and they don't appreciate having anyone notice them. They're 'hiding in plain sight' and they want to stay that way. — Wayfarer

It seems like every day or so I learn some new wisdom from Buddhism. This is one of them it seems. One doesn't even have to actually accept citta, vritti or vikalkpa as actual entities for them to be usual as concepts to understand how we operate.

The "why" is contained within, as far as I am concerned.

I said "viva la vida" until it goes to shit, and you replied "why?". I was simply responding to that.

No offense, but I don't see any arguments here. You've merely restated your original claim in more words. Correct me if I missed something. — Thorongil

You asked for why. So I replied. I don't think there really was an argument per se.

I think I agree with you that meaning is ultimately what gives the a person's life value. No (reasonable) amount of pain or pleasure can make or break a life, it's up to the individual to make it worth its while.

However, I disagree with your assessment that pain is not suffering. If physical or psychological pain was not uncomfortable to us, than we would not have a problem with it. Each day we deal with a lot of things; life is a kind of burden that requires meaning to keep going. So it is worthwhile to look into mitigating these kinds of experiences.

I don't care about the value of it either. I care about whether it's true or not. — Thorongil

Does Schopenhauer's metaphysical Will have any explanatory power over anything that isn't already covered by evolutionary biology? Occam's Razor seems to apply here.

Hey, man, you asserted the affirmative first. — Thorongil

Okay, fine, touche. You and I and everyone else here are alive and unless we have the guts to kill ourselves we might as well make the most of it and mitigate as much suffering as we can. Viva la vida.

The unexamined life is a literal waste of time, kicking the can down the road, hopscotching from one desire to the next while suffering the aches and pains and burdens of existence. To examine life, understand the dilemma of it, and actually know what kind of circus it actually is, and still consciously decide to keep living (i.e. living authetically; not-committing-suicide-every-day is a choice, not the null position), is rebellious and enough to fill a man's heart. Anybody can live...but it takes a certain kind of person to live absurdly, and that is worth some merit.

So Schopenhauer would agree with you that suffering is not a distinct feature of much of the universe, at least in terms of degree, but it is still an intrinsic part of reality, since all reality is merely the manifestation of the will. — Thorongil

I don't see the value of hypothesizing the existence of a metaphysical Will. Is it not enough to just say that sentient organism on planet Earth have the neural capacity to suffer?

No, not necessarily. I think it's quite clear that boredom and angst are present in all sentient organisms. Perhaps you want to argue in terms of the degree they are present, but to reject their presence outside of those living in affluence is absurd. — Thorongil

Which is why I said that I don't deny that they are problems. Existential problems do exist, I'm not denying that. The magnitude of the problems is what changes depending on the circumstances a person is in. Circumstances, that, for the most part, can be changed by the person themselves.

I would legitimately love to meet this dog who never feels boredom or anxiety. It would be a rare specimen for scientific study! — Thorongil

It was meant as a joke. My dog is abnormally happy though.

Why? — Thorongil

Why not?

I assume you're speaking of the illusoriness of the empirical ego, in which case, I fail to see how realizing this could cause angst. Are you and Ligotti disappointed there's no such thing as an immortal soul? If so, that is nothing more than petulance and egoism, not angst. Hence, you affirm and expand your ego by realizing that it doesn't exist, which is most ironic. — Thorongil

This was merely an example. I don't feel angst about the lack of an ego anymore. But this is not the only existential realization.

What would it mean to say that suffering is the structure of reality? — Thorongil

Meaning, for example, Schopenhauer's "Will"; the personification of striving, suffering, boredom, etc. These are qualities of existence. I might even say that they constitute a rather "natural" state of man. But suffering itself is not an intrinsic part of the universe. The cosmos isn't strung together by suffering.

This is ad hominem attack, though I very much doubt Schopenhauer would disagree with you on this point. In fact, I think he makes it himself when speaking of civilization and genius. — Thorongil

It was not meant to be an ad hominem. It was meant to show that Schopenhauer wouldn't be able to write his philosophy without having all that extra time and money. If you are struggling to survive, you don't have time to think about boredom or angst. These are problems that arise due to decadence.

One could say that this is to romanticize reality far more than the pessimist does. Life does not have to cause angst? Find me a sentient organism where this is the case. — Thorongil

My dog. LOL.

But really, there is no correlation between the facts of life and the attitude of the individual. Camus' Absurd Man is an example of this; i.e. just because there is no meaning does not mean everything is hopeless.

When I look at myself in the mirror, I realize that I am not a "self". I am an organism but I never was an never will have a concrete ego. For many people this will cause great angst, and in the past this has caused me great angst. Thomas Ligotti, pessimist/nihilist writer, thinks this way, when he writes that the lack of having a self is the worst thing that could happen to us. The only reason it causes him pain, though, would be because he desires having a self.

A bourgeois sentiment, this. Life will catch up to you, rest assured. — Thorongil

Aye, but until then, viva la vida.

Cool, then we are on the same page.

But you didn't answer the main question. Why post it if it only pertains to three people? I'm one of them so yeah I do feel this is more directly aimed at me more than say a poster who only posts on wit metaphysics and politics or what not. It's not so martyrish to suspect this based on the evidence of there being very few pessimists, albeit ones that post a lot on pessimism. — schopenhauer1

I posted this question because I wanted to discuss it. Even if only one person participated I would have posted it.

As it stands, though, more than three people have been participating in the pessimism-related threads.

1) some temperaments are simply prone not to focus on the bigger picture (most actually) and some are. This isn't attitude mind you but constitution. — schopenhauer1

Agreed. I think most of us here on PF would fall into the camp of focusing on the little details.

2) the struggles of life are present no matter what. It just becomes acute, more refined, and nuanced as the person focused their attention on this or that. — schopenhauer1

Sure.

3) eventually almost everyone will confront existential issues at some point. — schopenhauer1

Agreed.

4) the cat is already out of the bag. The justification for doing anything becomes more troublesome as one is faced with the prospect of the absurdity of survival and desires and goals — schopenhauer1

What are you saying here? I don't understand.

5) the environmental pain (which I refer to as contingent pain) will always be there. — schopenhauer1

...in various amounts of intensity. It's not as if we are going through hellfire on a daily basis. The potential for hellfire is there, though. But so is the potential for really great experiences.

Is that not agnostic atheism? Withholding judgement?

True. I suppose I hadn't considered that. Although most gods in our history haven't been that type.

Say you can pledge allegiance to ten kings who are all at war against each other. If you do not pledge allegiance to a king, the victorious king will chop your head off. If you pledge allegiance to a defeated king, the victorious king will chop your head off. Either way, your head gets chopped off unless you proved your allegiance to the victorious king. So it's better, ultimately, to take your chances with at least any king than to just sit back and do nothing. That's Pascal's Wager today.

Using examples of the "working class", "third world", and "hunter-gatherers", as some sort of ideal model of the un-existential man, simply "living his life" is inaccurate and a cliche of itself. In fact, in its attempt to undercut the "existential" thinker, it becomes its own cliche. — schopenhauer1

I don't think so, actually. And I wasn't limiting it to the "working class" "third world" "hunter gatherers"; anyone who has anything to do, whether that be washing the dishes or running a marathon, is using more energy doing that activity than they are thinking about existential problems.

Certainly, these problems still exist, I'm not denying that. And they are worth discussing. But they do not pose the same threat of harm as, say, a stab wound or a car crash.

Also, why even care about this post if you don't like pessimism? Do you want to be the resident anti-pessimist? If pessimism is absurd and insignificant as a philosophical model, why not just ignore it? I would say there are only three people that your railing against pessimism would matter to on this forum. — schopenhauer1

Curiously, when Thorongil posted his argument against the existence of the Christian god, you didn't seem to get all up in arms.

Just curious if this is trolling for a flame war. — schopenhauer1

No, this is not trolling nor a flame war. Why do you keep asking that?

it's just odd to me the fervent need to be anti-pessimism. — schopenhauer1

No, rather, it's just the fervent need to discuss philosophical topics. May I recall to you that you also made some threads regarding pessimism.

Also, to be pro-pessimist makes sense to me in terms of being a bit of the gadfly to the majority who usually don't consider it. However, to be the gadfly to the gadfly seems to me to be in trolling territory as it is specifically seeking out only one or two people who this really pertains to. — schopenhauer1

This is the some real martyrdom going on right here. (oh, you're the outcast!, the gadfly!) If I have a problem with pessimism (which I don't inherently, I have a problem with the attitudes of pessimists), then I post a thread about it. If I have a problem with realism, than I post a thread about realism. There's no discrimination here between what is okay to discuss and what is not.

And what attitude might that be?

Metaphysics - Third Edition: A Contemporary Introduction by Michael J. Loux.

You don't have to, but it'd be nice.

Keep in mind that I have read though this thread several times.

What issues do you have with Stoicism that make it a problematic philosophy to follow? I don't want to see your replies to other people to try to understand what your issue is with it. I need to know what your position is exactly so I know what I am arguing against.