Found an interesting interview of Peter Unger, who thinks philosophy is a bunch of empty ideas:

http://www.3quarksdaily.com/3quarksdaily/2014/06/philosophy-is-a-bunch-of-empty-ideas-interview-with-peter-unger.html

Historical lack of evidence for as great a number of geniuses amongst women as amongst men. Take the number of great scientists who were men, great philosophers, etc. It doesn't compare. Which woman is as great a scientist as an Einstein, Darwin, or Newton etc.? Which is as great a philosopher as a Plato, Socrates, Kant, Schopenhauer, Spinoza, Wittgenstein, etc.? Probably none. — Agustino

But why? This is the question.

Kant did not just pop out of the womb and write his Critique. He had access to education, something females did not at the time. Darwin didn't just "write" the Origin. He had access to education, money, ships for exploration of the Galapagos, etc. What were the females given? Very little in comparison. Can you imagine the contributions that would have come from female intellectuals had they been given access to education and resources?

For the role of testosterone? Because the remaining bit is a direct conclusion from knowing the role testosterone plays. — Agustino

I want a scientific source that says testosterone has a role in perseverance.

If the world were a paradise of luxury and ease, a land flowing with milk and honey, where every Jack obtained his Jill at once and without any difficulty, men would either die of boredom or hang themselves; or there would be wars, massacres, and murders; so that in the end mankind would inflict more suffering on itself than it has now to accept at the hands of Nature. — Schopenhauer

I don't see the connection. In fact, all I'm seeing here is a generalization; i.e. how Schopenhauer himself feels he would react to such a situation being applied to everyone across the world. Schopenhauer doesn't explain why such a utopia would lead to chaos and suicide, he just asserts it. It's sophistry.

But even solving their manifestations through technology or whatever still leaves you with the basic structural problem which is more something like...I don't know, sensitivity which is required for life plus entropy? Or if your Buddhist inclinations prefer, dukkha. — The Great Whatever

Dukkha is pretty much synonymous with dissatisfaction.

What is this metaphysical structure you are referring to? If we get rid of the manifestations of it, then the structure is no longer apparent.

.I don't know, sensitivity which is required for life plus entropy? — The Great Whatever

I don't know what you're saying here.

Though even that's not enough, because it often takes the form of the 'real deal' pain, not stupid self-help 'oh I'm unsatisfied with my life' bullshit. — The Great Whatever

By "real deal" I assume you are referring to pain caused by nociceptors. Presumably this could be solved by technology.

I would like some examples of these harder problems. Are you referring to things like cancer and tornadoes?

What justification do you have for this when it comes specifically to rational capabilities? (I've already agreed there are quite a few things women are generally better at than men) — Agustino

Google "female scientists". Hypatia, Lovelace, Carson, Curie, etc. Plus I happen to personally know five successful female scientists and engineers.

What justification do you have for the position that women do not have as well developed rational capabilities?

Keep in mind that testosterone is essential to developing traits of perseverence (along with aggression) as well, so biologically, women aren't as perseverent as men simply because they lack quantities of this hormone that men have. — Agustino

Source?

No, this doesn't follow. He's not criticizing at all. You read it as criticism, he's just stating how things are, without judging that this is good or bad. You read what he says, and immediately judge that he's saying something bad about women, which he is not. — Agustino

So what is he saying?

Very peaceful song.

No, historical evidence written by the facts. The scientific/philosophical developments have, historically, been driven mostly by men. This is undisputable. It's not only historical accounts which justify this, but also the utter lack of evidence of a similar number of scientific inventions/discoveries or philosophical systems developed by women. — Agustino

You and I do not disagree that male humans have been the dominant force in "progress" and development. What we disagree on is why this is. I believe females have the potential to be just as good as males at many things, and even surpass in some areas that are even dominated by males today. But they have been systematically oppressed in the past simply because they did not have the physical strength and brutish testosterone that males do. The male/female role has become an unfortunate crevice in the social fabric, one that will be difficult to mend, and so many females are content (or feel obligated) to "stay in the kitchen" while the males do all the development.

and neither did Schopenhauer as a matter of fact... — Agustino

What he was saying is that because this is the way he thought women were, he felt women could not do anything outside of that. He was criticizing females without understanding why they are that way to begin with.

Historical evidence strongly disagrees with you. — Agustino

Historical evidence that is written by man simply because man has bigger, stronger muscles. You may also recall that practically every single war was waged by a man who wanted to show the world how big his penis was.

You're bordering the naturalistic fallacy here. Just because women are suitable for giving birth and raising children doesn't mean that's all they can or ought to do.

Incidentally, Einstein chased quite a few ladies - and frequently, they allowed him to catch them. — Pneumenon

My mistake.

I would consider myself one of the newer guys still in the PF network, as I've only been here for a little over a year now.

I may be alone in this, but I feel this new PF is a lot more relaxed and fun than the old PF was. Feels like I'm not getting judged as much for being a newb, and we're all just having civilized discussions without spamming the eye-rolling emoji.

You are not alone with this sentiment. Although I personally do agree with many of the things Schopenhauer wrote (alongside other "machismo" pessimists), I also get turned off a bit by just how much of a dick he was, whether it be his general apathy towards humankind or his pontificating rants about himself. Here are some good examples:

Great men are like eagles, and build their nest on some lofty solitude.

Which leads me to believe he felt people who derived pleasure from socializing with other people were stupid and petty.

Rascals are always sociable, more's the pity! and the chief sign that a man has any nobility in his character is the little pleasure he takes in others' company.

Even more so. It's just masturbatory self-inflation. For a man who thought the ego was an incarnation of the Will and therefore a source of suffering, he sure does have a knack for blowing it up.

To live alone is the fate of all great souls.

Repeat ad nauseam.

The problem I see with the picture of the cynical, smartass intellectual caricature is that it is too easy for any person to become a cynical smartass and think this is a direct correlation to their intellectual prowess.

Richard Feynman (although mocked in the philosophical community for his attacks on philosophy) was indisputably one of the most influential theoretical physicists of our time. He was also a major party-goer and womanizer.

Albert Einstein, on the other hand, was much more reclusive and quiet; your stereotypical "genius".

I think Schopenhauer had a bad case of of a bad attitude and was pissy that his colleagues were getting dates and lectures while he wasn't. So he became caustic and bitter and transformed it into a kind of miserable pride.

That's the whole pessimistic position on progress. It's constantly fighting the force of entropy, and will eventually lose. Eroding away everything.

Progress is ultimately doomed though, whether it be from our own self destruction or the eventual heat death of the universe. It is inevitable.

You can access all of your threads by Comments.

You can access your threads via your Discussions tab on your Personal About page.

Yeah, I don't see how a person who isn't discontented with their current situation would be willing to give up their liberties and current values. To endorse views that extreme shows how desperate many people are.

I also haven't seen True Detective, for it too seems to be the same sort of popularizing of Schopenhauer that repudiates him in the end; in other words, shallow, gimmicky tripe that merely uses Schopenhauerian themes to invoke a gritty and rebellious atmosphere. I have no patience or time for fairy tale endings unless they are expected from the start. — Thorongil

I actually had a different take on the show. Although it ends in a quasi-optimistic way with no real explanation why, I like to think that the director did this on purpose. The director said that he was influenced by major pessimistic works, such as Schopenhauer, Zapffe and Ligotti, and it seemed to me like it was a kind of an ironic twist at the end, a nod to Ligotti, who in one of his books I believe criticizes the redemption cliche. If you hadn't read Ligotti, it came across as just the typical ending. If you had read Ligotti, it was the ultimate irony.

In my personal opinion, True Detective is a very good show that does an extremely good job, in comparison to other shows, in voicing the philosophy behind it. It's most definitely advertised as the "hip" and "gritty" show, but it nevertheless delivers on its message.

Glad you mentioned Paxton, he brings a good description of what Fascism entails. Fascism is such a reactionary political position, it exalts anti-intellectualism, emotionalism, survival of the fittest, war, tribal mentality, etc and disparages the liberal, modern values such as liberty, equality, justice, peace, and intellectualism. I am interested in understanding why a person would support such values, though.

The latter are unintended but welcome side effects of our position. — Thorongil

I'm picking up on the sarcasm here, but this is actually very important to the discussion, I think. The average depressive attitude of the pessimist does not logically follow from the conclusions of pessimism.

In all seriousness, the day pessimists are considered anything but unwanted cranks interrupting The Glorious Progress of the Human Race™ is the day I buy a hat in order to eat it. — Thorongil

Can't argue with this. Pessimism will never garner strength as a major philosophy because most people are unfortunately brainwashed into the progress mentality. It runs against all they have been taught.

Good insight regarding Islamo-Fascism and the theocratic fascist state.


The values of anti-intellectualism, brutish war mongering and group-mentality of Fascism, although to most of us would seem knee-jerkingly bad, are seen as a good thing by a Fascist. It runs completely contrary to our contemporary values (liberty, equality, freedom, intellectualism, peace, etc), which are seen as bad things to a Fascist. I think that's why I find it such an interesting philosophy: not that I agree with it, but how something so absurd in my worldview could actually garner enough strength to become an international threat.

Oh, gotcha. I was gonna say, damn, I got popular.

I get that you have probably changed your position, — schopenhauer1

I have moderated my position. Yes, I remember that post I made a year ago...when I was very angsty and depressed. I am getting better now. And I can assure you I am not trolling.

Furthermore, I don't quite see the importance of understanding my position. Isn't it enough to read what I have posted in this thread without trying to piece together what my entire philosophy is? That's going beyond the scope of the thread. I have supplemented you with my thoughts on the topic (of pessimism vs stoicism), and whether or not this contradicts something I said over a year ago shouldn't really have any basis in the discussion.

I don't know if it is expectations and reality. Rather, it is just a feeling, the pain can range from as physical as a cut, or the less tangible but still real emotional pain. — schopenhauer1

"Just a feeling"? I do not understand. Feelings do not arise spontaneously and for no reason. Pain arises to notify the subject that they are in a potentially dangerous and harmful situation. And the emotional pain: what causes this? What perpetuates this feeling? Buddhism answers this by the doctrine of dependent origin: every dharma arises due to another dharma.

Someone who has his head in the sand will feel the disappointments more when the fissures break. — schopenhauer1

Sure, but they also live their life prior to their disappointment with hyperbolic glee. I don't endorse the path of ignorant optimism, but neither do I endorse the path of extreme precautionary pessimism. Both kill the human spirit. There must be a balance for the human to thrive. I agree with you that we shouldn't stick our heads in the sand, but neither should we dread the future. Prepare for the worst, expect the mediocre, but hope for the best.

Wrong, he is saying they are enjoying it. It is literary sophistry. My mind imagines his ideas attributed to a caricature of someone who did a lot of cocaine and thinking they are the king of the world. — schopenhauer1

Perhaps not enjoying as one would enjoy an ice cream sandwich, but rather relishing it because it gives them power. Nietzsche thought people were motivated by power. You offer a child the opportunity to be "virtuous," and the child will scratch their head, he said. But you offer them the chance to be stronger, fitter, sexier, and better than their friends and peers, and the child will immediately perk up. Nietzsche was appealing to what he felt was our intrinsic drive for power. I don't entirely agree with him; I think ultimately the race for power is a rat race that only perpetuates our suffering, but I do find his texts to be motivating for me to better myself as a person.

It cannot be defeated. Accepting it is no good either, because no one actually accepts it except in platitudes to make others feel better about it in places like philosophy forums. The less you try to deny it, the less you will feel the unrealistic expectation that you will mitigate it. Accepting it doesn't mean you won't feel it as much, contrary to what some Stoic-minded people will tell you they supposedly do. Rather, accept the fact that it happens, it might be part of being alive and human, and it is ok not to like. The compassion comes in the commiseration. "That sucks, man" is better than "I looketh in the direction of naught..and I feeleth no pain" (with face emotionless and head cocked slightly upwards towards the sky like some mimic of a statue of a Greek philosopher- arrogant and smug). — schopenhauer1

You are approaching this in the way a quarterback approaches the opponent: head on. Which doesn't really do much other than throw you right at it and leave you bruised and broken.

How you do know how other people experience? I see no argument of yours against Stoicism except for "contrary to what they supposedly do."

The compassion comes in the commiseration. "That sucks, man" is better than "I looketh in the direction of naught..and I feeleth no pain" (with face emotionless and head cocked slightly upwards towards the sky like some mimic of a statue of a Greek philosopher- arrogant and smug). — schopenhauer1

This is a most excellent stereotypical straw man of the Stoic.

But of course you wouldn't like to be the noble Stoic, rather, the angsty, Rust Cohle-esque pessimist, with a dark, sullen face cast away from the sunlight by the sheer malevolence it has upon the being. No, better to have never been, and better to bitch and sulk about it than to take steps to overcome the problem. Being a Stoic is bland, being a pessimist is cool, hip, attention-grabbing and contrarian. Or am I just straw-manning your position?

But I read your comment before it was deleted urging me to read your previous replies to other people. So I did.

We are always going to be annoyed or disappointed at something. — schopenhauer1

Eh. How big of a deal are you making this to be? Why are you annoyed? Why are you disappointed? Because your expectations have come into conflict with reality.

Of course it is impossible to get rid of all of our expectations. But knowing the source of your angst actually takes a considerable amount of the sting away from it. Being able to laugh it off is cool.

Fighting life head-on with the attitude that focuses on the negative leads to negativity. Although everyone feels disappointment and anxiety, not everyone is beat down about it.

A pessimist would say that they are preventing the actuality of future suffering. Life ending might be a consequence, but it is passive and in recognition that there was nothing to be deprived in the first place (just our possible present sadness our projections of no future humans). — schopenhauer1

Right. I consider birth to be unnecessary and potentially harmful. It's like eating a cookie that may be stale. Is it worth it? Maybe. Then again you could get food poisoning. In this case, another person is getting food poisoning (disease/illness, accidents, disasters, death).

But it's not something I really get all worked up about, which I sense you are (using my omniscient powers of internet-empathy). Life goes on, as they say.

You know you can't actually do anything — schopenhauer1

So, in other words, defeatism.

but you are not going to let delusions that it can be overcome or the idea that we must keep producing for producing's sake or the idea that we should try to forget what is pretty much an inevitable reality that pervades life from keeping us from recognizing this tragic aesthetic. — schopenhauer1

I think this implies that you think everyone else is delusional or masochistic. I'm not necessarily disagreeing, I just want to make this clear.

You don't rebel by Nietzschean embrace. He had it all wrong. He increased the delusion more. He set a template for many other thinkers and followers to posture and fantasize about embracing (read overcoming) suffering. No, you rebel by recognizing that the suffering that is contained or is existence simply sucks, and that it is not good and recognizing it for what it is. No delusions of trying to twist it into rhetorical flourishes of "goodness" or by accepting it, or by embracing it. No, you have every right to dislike it and you should. The sooner we can rid ourselves of the delusions and recognize the existential dilemmas and contingent sufferings, put it on the table and see the pendulum of survival/goals and boredom, contingent painful experiences, annoyances as real- the instrumentality of all things of the world, then I think we can live with more verity. — schopenhauer1

This whole paragraph screams defeatism to me. Because what better way of amplifying suffering than by focusing on it and actively disliking every aspect of it that pervades your life? Nietzsche thought that the strong would be able to enjoy and relish life in a way that the weak could not. Call it delusional but at least they are enjoying it.

This is the opposite of my idea of Rebellious Pessimism. It is not good to accept suffering. Complaining is fine.. Bitch to your hearts content and be discontent with it because it is always there and unrealistic to think it can be otherwise. — schopenhauer1

But why? Do you think bitching about it makes it any better? It's completely defeatist!

And the present can be pretty crappy too. — schopenhauer1

Only if you make it.

I think your post got deleted.

I've been thinking about this more and would like to share some thoughts to further the discussion.

From a Buddhist perspective, most suffering is caused by tanha. There are three types of tanha (sensual, being, and not-being). This is the type of suffering that I assume you are most familiar with, as it is strikingly similar to Schopenhauer's posited metaphysical Will. However, this does not cover the suffering caused from external influences, such as a natural disaster. Typically a religious Buddhist would say that this evil was caused by karma.

Karma could, I suppose, be stretched to become a secular idea. By simply looking at karma as the description of causality, one can see how evil arises.

Which leads to the connection to Stoicism. If you can't control something, don't fret about it. The source of non-tanhanic suffering is from conflict with what you cannot control. How you deal with a situation is how you experience a situation.

From this perspective, it seems like there really aren't any problems, related to existence, left. Ideally, if you expunge desire and mitigate conflict, life becomes a quite peaceful and manageable affair.

Buddhism teaches that internal suffering, tanha, is caused by ignorance, attachment, and aversion (to coincide with each of the three types of tanha). Think about war. Think about how much conflict could be avoided if everyone seriously looked at their lives and got rid of these three poisons and therefore tanha and therefore suffering. Would there be war? Would we have conflict?

I think Buddhism diagnosis and prescription usually works, and leads not only to non-suffering but flourishing. And Stoicism is simply how you deal with the remaining suffering, which, incidentally, is what I am now beginning to see as the only type of suffering that makes childbirth harmful. Ebola, for example, is reason enough for a woman to not have a child in Africa. The potential for nuclear war is reason enough to abstain from having children. But abstaining from having children because they might feel bored or feel unsatisfied with something seems very decadent.

I'm excited to start reading it. I ordered a used copy of it and it is arriving some time this week, just in time for the Thanksgiving holiday.

One of my favorite songs by one of my favorite groups (sadly no longer together). Canopy Shade, by Trophy Wife.

Interesting self-observation I just had: when I post an argument that I am not completely sure about (more of just musings or general impressions) that gets liked, it gives me the superficial sense that I am "right" without actually knowing why I am right.

Now if I post an argument that details a position that I am passionate about, and garners likes, it's nice to see other people appreciating my ideas.

Kind of strange.

In addition to the reasons I have already presented, I think it would make longer conversations difficult to follow. — Postmodern Beatnik

Completely agree.

Anonymity would be a good idea if the single, unanimous goal of this forum was to conduct formal philosophical discussions. But this isn't the case. We would lose the sense of community and informal "friendship", as well as the ability to talk nonchalantly in a thread unrelated to philosophy specifically. I think it would be artificial and unattractive to current and future members.

I did not know this was an option. Good to know.

Also, negative reinforcement usually does not deter trolls, but it does deter people who are honestly looking for a discussion. It is possible to just ignore posts that you feel are not of quality.

I don't have much that I disagree with you on, except that maybe it is impossible to assume how other people perceive the world. In which case we need more input, from other users.

At the same time, though, negative karma can lead to mob-rule. The fear of public internet shame (look how many dislikes you got, what an idiot!) can lead to people not posting things that may actually be good content. Furthermore, other people can subconsciously be drawn in to think that the posts with negative karma are automatically "bad" (why??? - because anonymous internet users disagree...therefore it is wrong?). Instead of forming their own opinion, they base it off the karma system. It would be best to get rid of the system entirely, but if it has to be here, make it positive.

To expand on my previous reply to you in this thread, I think many people (including myself) swing around like a pendulum during their lives. Sometimes we are able to deal with the crap in life, and sometimes we can't. I don't think there is a single, winner-takes-all philosophy that will solve all of life's problems. There are simply some guidelines that apply depending on how the subject sees fit. It's absurd and kind of funny to think about.

Do you think your conception of the pessimist's position is sufficient?

I think it serves as a bare-minimum position. Like I said above, we are all pendulums swinging around. Sometimes Buddhism works really, really well for me. Other times not so much. But no matter what, the idea that everyone is a fellow suffering that should be treated with respect and compassion rings true to me. It's pure and simple. But it is also lacking some of the structure and meaning that so many of us are so deeply pursuing.

These are just examples I have seen in the forums or in discussions I have seen. — schopenhauer1

I see. Thank you for the examples, I was not aware of the influence Stoicism has on this forum.

The other philosopher thrown around a lot is Nietzsche because he apparently embraced the suffering. — schopenhauer1

Yes, amor fati.

The do think that life has suffering at the least, and their answer, if I was to boil it down to a slogan is "be indifferent to situations one cannot control". — schopenhauer1

Hence the adjective "stoic", meaning enduring hardship.

I think you are right about the general slogan of Stoicism. Buddhism would posit that it is important to let go of your desires as well. In this way, the two philosophies can be paired together as the ultimate secular philosophy of life. You have Stoicism's teachings of how to deal with the suffering you cannot avoid, and you have Buddhism's teachings of how to avoid the other type of suffering, the self-caused suffering. Stoicism would say that a natural disaster is not itself a "bad thing", but rather your reaction to the natural disaster is a bad thing. Buddhism would say that your desires (tanha), or Schopenhauer's Will, is the cause of every other type of suffering. That's my take on it anyway. Someone whoop me into shape if I butchered it.

Generally speaking, this would be something of the following:
1) Not procreating or creating a new generation that will suffer
2) Asceticism to deny the world/will/will-to-live so as to achieve a metaphysical state of calm
3) Seeing everyone as fellow-sufferers who deserve compassion — schopenhauer1

I don't honestly have any problems with this position, as it's basically what I uphold today. This doesn't mean you can't additionally be a stoic or a buddhist. But that wasn't your original question, was it?

To which I suggest a topic I made a while back about the clarity of pessimism as a worldview.

For many of the people on this forum, Stoicism is a stock answer to how people handle life faced with conditions that a Philosophical Pessimist might enumerate upon. Since Stoicism keeps coming up, I'd like to know what some users on here think of Stoicism in regards to it being an answer to the problems posed by the Philosophical Pessimist. — schopenhauer1

Is it? I'm not aware that any non-pessimists on here are self-described stoics. I don't remember seeing any major discussions over stoicism here in the past, either (although I could be wrong and if you have links then I will look at them). Unless they are specifically saying they are stoics, then all they are showing is a tendencies towards stoic-like beliefs. Generalizations may be harmful in discussions.

1) Does the Stoic ethic provide an answer to the existential boredom/instrumentality/annoyances/negative experiences/desire/flux/becoming-and-never-being, etc. that the Philosophical Pessimist poses? — schopenhauer1

If it didn't have an answer then it would be a flawed philosophy. Presumably followers of Stoicism would not think these problems pose much of an issue. But I'm not exactly a stoic myself.

2) Is Stoicism a kind of Philosophical Pessimism or at least close cousins? If it is not a kind of Philosophical Pessimism, how might they differ? — schopenhauer1

It is a common thing to hear Buddhism and Stoicism as the perfect couple. They are very similar. Buddhist philosophy is pessimistic in that it realizes that life is suffering. But it is not defeatist. It offers a solution to this unsavory condition. Stoicism does the same thing, and is oftentimes extremely compatible with Buddhist philosophy.

Also, as I'm sure you already know, philosophical pessimism is a family resemblance term. So someone's pessimism may not be the same pessimism as another person's. This makes it difficult to separate people's beliefs into strict categories.

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

I would need to know what the solution of your flavor of pessimism is before answering this question.

Done. Thanks.

I call it, Man and Dog. One of my finest pieces.

Man and Dog