• schopenhauer1
    16
    So with most other animals, instincts/drives often take the place of heuristics to come to a decision. Often that decision leads to sub-optimal results.. Stepped on the road at the wrong time, talked to a person at the wrong time, judged a situation wrong, etc. etc. Now, there might be some sort of unconscious internal calculations that all animal brains do. I'm not talking about those processes. Rather, I'm talking about the kind of self-talk, conscious, and linguistic-based decisions that humans make most part of the day. This can be considered "deliberative thinking", or "discursive thinking", or "rational thinking", depending on the context. All the helping mechanisms that other animals have- mainly internal drives and instinctual group behaviors have been completely internalized and given the full bearing of deliberation in the human. All the burden is on our thought-processes, how we deliberate and interact with the socio-physical environment. This leads to that much more psychological stress. This situation is almost maladaptive to an extent. Some thoughts from philosophers and writers getting to my point:

    Zapffe's view is that humans are born with an overdeveloped skill (understanding, self-knowledge) which does not fit into nature's design. The human craving for justification on matters such as life and death cannot be satisfied, hence humanity has a need that nature cannot satisfy. The tragedy, following this theory, is that humans spend all their time trying not to be human. The human being, therefore, is a paradox. — https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Wessel_Zapffe#Philosophical_work

    Zapffe views the human condition as tragically overdeveloped, calling it "a biological paradox, an abomination, an absurdity, an exaggeration of disastrous nature."[1] Zapffe viewed the world as beyond humanity's need for meaning, unable to provide any of the answers to the fundamental existential questions.

    The tragedy of a species becoming unfit for life by over-evolving one ability is not confined to humankind. Thus it is thought, for instance, that certain deer in paleontological times succumbed as they acquired overly-heavy horns. The mutations must be considered blind, they work, are thrown forth, without any contact of interest with their environment. In depressive states, the mind may be seen in the image of such an antler, in all its fantastic splendour pinning its bearer to the ground.

    — Peter Wessel Zapffe, The Last Messiah
    — https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Last_Messiah

    “Better to be an animal than a man, an insect than an animal, a plant than an insect, and so on.

    Salvation? Whatever diminishes the kingdom of consciousness and compromises its supremacy.”
    — E.M. Cioran

    Knowledge is the plague of life, and consciousness, an open wound in its heart. — E.M. Cioran

    Consciousness is nature's nightmare. — E.M. Cioran

    Consciousness is much more than the thorn, it is the dagger in the flesh — E.M Cioran

    “For the rest of the earth’s organisms, existence is relatively uncomplicated. Their lives are about three things: survival, reproduction, death—and nothing else. But we know too much to content ourselves with surviving, reproducing, dying—and nothing else. We know we are alive and know we will die. We also know we will suffer during our lives before suffering—slowly or quickly—as we draw near to death. This is the knowledge we “enjoy” as the most intelligent organisms to gush from the womb of nature. And being so, we feel shortchanged if there is nothing else for us than to survive, reproduce, and die. We want there to be more to it than that, or to think there is. This is the tragedy: Consciousness has forced us into the paradoxical position of striving to be unself-conscious of what we are—hunks of spoiling flesh on disintegrating bones.” — Thomas Ligotti, Conspiracy Against the Human Race

    No other life forms know they are alive, and neither do they know they will die. This is our curse alone. Without this hex upon our heads, we would never have withdrawn as far as we have from the natural—so far and for such a time that it is a relief to say what we have been trying with our all not to say: We have long since been denizens of the natural world. Everywhere around us are natural habitats, but within us is the shiver of startling and dreadful things. Simply put: We are not from here. If we vanished tomorrow, no organism on this planet would miss us. Nothing in nature needs us. — Thomas Ligotti, Conspiracy Against the Human Race

    As a fact, we cannot give suffering precedence in either our individual or collective lives. We have to get on with things, and those who give precedence to suffering will be left behind. They fetter us with their sniveling. We have someplace to go and must believe we can get there, wherever that may be. And to conceive that there is a 'brotherhood of suffering between everything alive' would disable us from getting anywhere. We are preoccupied with the good life, and step by step are working toward a better life. What we do, as a conscious species, is set markers for ourselves. Once we reach one marker, we advance to the next — as if we were playing a board game we think will never end, despite the fact that it will, like it or not. And if you are too conscious of not liking it, then you may conceive of yourself as a biological paradox that cannot live with its consciousness and cannot live without it. And in so living and not living, you take your place with the undead and the human puppet. — Thomas Ligotti, Conspiracy Against the Human Race

    We are only chance visitants to this jungle of blind mutations. The natural world existed when we did not, and it will continue to exist long after we are gone. The supernatural crept into life only when the door of consciousness was opened in our heads. The moment we stepped through that door, we walked out on nature. Say what we will about it and deny it till we die--we are blighted by our knowing what is too much to know and too secret to tell one another if we are to stride along our streets, work at our jobs, and sleep in our beds. It is the knowledge of a race of beings that is only passing through this shoddy cosmos. — Thomas Ligotti, Conspiracy Against the Human Race

    But all this contributes to increase the measures of suffering in human life out of all proportion to its pleasures; and the pains of life are made much worse for man by the fact that death is something very real to him. The brute flies from death instinctively without really knowing what it is, and therefore without ever contemplating it in the way natural to a man, who has this prospect always before his eyes. So that even if only a few brutes die a natural death, and most of them live only just long enough to transmit their species, and then, if not earlier, become the prey of some other animal,—whilst man, on the other hand, manages to make so-called natural death the rule, to which, however, there are a good many exceptions,—the advantage is on the side of the brute, for the reason stated above. But the fact is that man attains the natural term of years just as seldom as the brute; because the unnatural way in which he lives, and the strain of work and emotion, lead to a degeneration of the race; and so his goal is not often reached.

    The brute is much more content with mere existence than man; the plant is wholly so; and man finds satisfaction in it just in proportion as he is dull and obtuse. Accordingly, the life of the brute carries less of sorrow with it, but also less of joy, when compared with the life of man; and while this may be traced, on the one side, to freedom from the torment of care and anxiety, it is also due to the fact that hope, in any real sense, is unknown to the brute. It is thus deprived of any share in that which gives us the most and best of our joys and pleasures, the mental anticipation of a happy future, and the inspiriting play of phantasy, both of which we owe to our power of imagination. If the brute is free from care, it is also, in this sense, without hope; in either case, because its consciousness is limited to the present moment, to what it can actually see before it. The brute is an embodiment of present impulses, and hence what elements of fear and hope exist in its nature—and they do not go very far—arise only in relation to objects that lie before it and within reach of those impulses: whereas a man's range of vision embraces the whole of his life, and extends far into the past and future.

    Following upon this, there is one respect in which brutes show real wisdom when compared with us—I mean, their quiet, placid enjoyment of the present moment. The tranquillity of mind which this seems to give them often puts us to shame for the many times we allow our thoughts and our cares to make us restless and discontented. And, in fact, those pleasures of hope and anticipation which I have been mentioning are not to be had for nothing. The delight which a man has in hoping for and looking forward to some special satisfaction is a part of the real pleasure attaching to it enjoyed in advance. This is afterwards deducted; for the more we look forward to anything, the less satisfaction we find in it when it comes. But the brute's enjoyment is not anticipated, and therefore, suffers no deduction; so that the actual pleasure of the moment comes to it whole and unimpaired. In the same way, too, evil presses upon the brute only with its own intrinsic weight; whereas with us the fear of its coming often makes its burden ten times more grievous.
    — Arthur Schopenhauer, On the Suffering of the World
  • Wayfarer
    21
    Zapffe's view is that humans are born with an overdeveloped skill (understanding, self-knowledge) which does not fit into nature's design. — https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Wessel_Zapffe#Philosophical_work

    Right. Which is why the solution to the problem is out-of-scope for naturalism.
  • schopenhauer1
    16
    Right. Which is why the solution to the problem is out-of-scope for naturalism.Wayfarer

    All I'm saying is that we are given the burden of, "If I don't want this, I have to do that.. but I don't want to do that". There's bad decision-making and heuristics. It's all confined to the individual's own deliberation.. It isn't unthinking instinct or shared amongst the group.. It is each person's individual deliberative situation. Don't forget the monkey wrench of mental illness.. So human condition is burdensome even for the most well-adjusted.. Add in mental illness for inefficiencies, and you get all sorts of glitches for more maladaptation to the psycho-physical circumstances. Perhaps they would have simply been dead earlier in previous times.

    Either way, humans have the burden of how to exist each and every day/moment.. Other animals don't have that extra burden.

    What's funny is when you try to answer that "no there is a way.." this becomes untenable in its own justifications.. Yes, humans "tend" to form habits based on cultural cues but this is still up to the individual if they want to accept that and use it, or even if they do, whether they integrate the habits well, or even if they are decent at integrating social-survival habits, they can still make a bad choice somewhere at a particular time or use the judgement wrong, or simply contingent circumstances don't work out etc..
  • 180 Proof
    41
    Yes yes. And yet among the self-immiserated there are degrees from (A) the more miserable to baseline, or ordinary, misery to (Z) the very least miserable; the life task is, it seems, to prevent increasing and/or to reduce (any)one's misery as much and as often as possible with each decision. "Never to be born" as Silenus recommends is already out of the grasp of the already-born. Some, of course, kill themselves. And the rest – like Jacob versus the angel, each of us wrestles with our own 'angel of misery', which is ourselves (our shadow), habitual self-immiserators, wrestling either to endure misery like beasts of burden or (Z) to unlearn miseries as much as possible through various reflective practices, just as Zapffe, Cioran & Schopenhauer had done and as Ligotti does now. Each one conscientiously childless and constitutionally non-suicidal. Exemplars (Z).
  • schopenhauer1
    16

    Phase 1: Cynical comment on human misery: "Yes, what great non-paradise conditions we are born into as humans".

    Phase 2: Pessimist answer: If not paradise conditions, let's do something about it for future people.. As for ourselves, let's commiserate.

    Phase 3 The crowd's answer: [Throw rotten vegetables.. and in Monty Python-cockney accents] "Boooo you! Fuck off! Leave us alone! You are such a downer! Talk science or politics! Boo you!!! Fuck off with your pessimism!!! We like this non-paradise arrangement!! Don't remind us of the structural downsides!! I'll ignore you!! I'll sublimate it!! I'll anchor it in X!! I'll wave you off as a [place degrading remark here]!!! That ad hom will show him and hopefully those other pessimists will get the point!! You're not wanted!! Go away!! Did I say Fuck off?!! Make sure none of the other you lot get any ideas now!! Let's talk economics, politics, and science.. Those are LEGITIMATE!! Now fuck off!!
  • Wayfarer
    21
    It is each person's individual deliberative situation.schopenhauer1

    It is an inescapable consequence of self-awareness. In my view, that is one of the meanings of 'the myth of the fall'. That is why religions exist at all - to resolve that existential bind. Schopenhauer, in spite of his purported pessimism, still recognised that. See this heading in the SEP entry.

    the ascetic consciousness can be said symbolically to return Adam and Eve to Paradise, for it is the very quest for knowledge (i.e., the will to apply the principle of individuation to experience) that the ascetic overcomes. This amounts to a self-overcoming at the universal level, where not only physical desires are overcome, but where humanly-inherent epistemological dispositions are overcome as well.

    There's also something in Eric Fromm's notion of 'the fear of freedom'. Liberty is a kind of burden in some ways, because so much is left up to the individual. I think that's why people used to join the army or become monks - it removes that burden. But ultimately the burden is that of self-hood, and that is inextricably part of the human condition. The philosophy of individualism actually excerbates that in some respects. That was also central to Durkheim's analysis of 'anomie' and Weber's 'spirit of capitalism'.
  • Tom Storm
    10
    Liberty is a kind of burden in some ways, because so much is left up to the individual. I think that's why people used to join the army or become monks - it removes that burden.Wayfarer

    Totally agree. I would add prison to this. Thirty years ago I would have added university too, which used to function as a kind of sheltered workshop for so many men and women of tenure. Freedom is terrifying to many people. I have often noticed that for many people having a dependency on substances is also a good way to avoid calling the shots.
  • Cuthbert
    2
    boss i asked a mosquito about its quiet placid enjoyment of the present moment and its tranquillity of mind as celebrated by schopenhauer but he could not stop to chat for some animals its constant worry and i include cockroaches yours archy
  • Book273
    2
    Your position assumes the inability of man to move into a state of acceptance of his life. That seems very sad to me. It also turns a blind eye to those that have achieved balance in their lives. We do not "have it bad" at all.

    Also, all of your supporting quotes have a foundation/assumption that the other, "lower" forms of life (suggesting that man is higher, a laughable concept) are unaware of all that man is aware of, however, that foundation is based entirely on the assumption that we, humans, are the higher form of life, and that we are aware of things that the other lifeforms are not aware of. I say that they are aware of these things, they have simply found balance, something that we, generally, have yet to find.

    We are hardly the higher being.
  • Josh Alfred
    2
    I am confused, how can something that exists in nature (mental reference of survival/existence) not be natural and understandable? If it were possible a leopard could know: 'that it had spots, and what that might mean for its existence." The spots don't disappear simply because he doesn't reflect on their natural causes." Man's natural position I don think it outside of nature, but internal and inherent in it. As spots are to a leopard.
  • schopenhauer1
    16
    the ascetic consciousness can be said symbolically to return Adam and Eve to Paradise, for it is the very quest for knowledge (i.e., the will to apply the principle of individuation to experience) that the ascetic overcomes. This amounts to a self-overcoming at the universal level, where not only physical desires are overcome, but where humanly-inherent epistemological dispositions are overcome as well.

    Yes Schop’s denial of the Will. But I think even he thought this was reserved for the few who had the ascetic character to do so. The rest of us have aesthetic contemplation and compassionate-driven acts. Much lesser vehicles for overcoming the PSR and the world of Representation.

    There's also something in Eric Fromm's notion of 'the fear of freedom'. Liberty is a kind of burden in some ways, because so much is left up to the individual. I think that's why people used to join the army or become monks - it removes that burden. But ultimately the burden is that of self-hood, and that is inextricably part of the human condition. The philosophy of individualism actually excerbates that in some respects. That was also central to Durkheim's analysis of 'anomie' and Weber's 'spirit of capitalism'.Wayfarer

    Yes, the individual bears the brunt of everything. Interestingly, this then becomes a vicious cycle whereby your sub-optimal condition is the individuals “inability” to make the right “judgement call” or decision. The very fact humans must even try to find or cultivate a heuristic is it’s own burden.
  • schopenhauer1
    16
    Your position assumes the inability of man to move into a state of acceptance of his life. That seems very sad to me. It also turns a blind eye to those that have achieved balance in their lives. We do not "have it bad" at all.Book273

    We’ve achieved balance, damnit! [fist pounds on desk].

    I say that they are aware of these things, they have simply found balance, something that we, generally, have yet to find.

    We are hardly the higher being.
    Book273

    I don’t think other animals “find” balance. Not in the way humans must do. Because of this inability, we are miserable aberrations from the rest of nature. The origins are the same. I’m not claiming metaphysical difference, but a resultant consequence of how we evolved. If I claimed bats can do things birds can’t and vice versa, you would probably not have a problem. Humans are different as well obviously, and the individual heuristic based self-talk justifications and decisions we make to survive, and our own ability to know this situation puts us on our own miserably outcast ship, part of nature but not at home in the same way.

    Meditating and “taking in nature and the moment” is not the same as an animal that doesn’t have linguistic based, conceptual, heuristic self-talk cognition. You might say we try to mimic these states through things like mediation and meditation.
  • schopenhauer1
    16

    See my responses above as it addresses your confusion..I’ll put the most salient one below.
    don’t think other animals “find” balance. Not in the way humans must do. Because of this inability, we are miserable aberrations from the rest of nature. The origins are the same. I’m not claiming metaphysical difference, but a resultant consequence of how we evolved. If I claimed bats can do things birds can’t and vice versa, you would probably not have a problem. Humans are different as well obviously, and the individual heuristic based self-talk justifications and decisions we make to survive, and our own ability to know this situation puts us on our own miserably outcast ship, part of nature but not at home in the same way.schopenhauer1
  • 180 Proof
    41
    A prefrontal lobotomy works too.

    (Consciousness, not living itself, is the problem.)
  • schopenhauer1
    16
    A prefrontal lobotomy works too.

    (Consciousness, not living itself, is the problem.)
    180 Proof

    Yes, I’m giving an account specifically of how human cognition is especially the problem. The fact that I can point to this and explain it is significant.
  • magritte
    2
    I don’t think other animals “find” balance. Not in the way humans must do.schopenhauer1

    Do you have a cat or dog? Especially a cat would object and show you why.
  • schopenhauer1
    16

    You’re probably misinterpreting me. Contra other animals, humans strive to (or need to) find balance.
  • Corvus
    7
    Humans are endowed with reasoning and linguistic capabilities, but when it comes to intuition, animals could be far more intuitive? Animals have higher sensory perceptive power such as smells, sights and hearings ... etc too.
  • Wayfarer
    21
    Interestingly, this then becomes a vicious cycle whereby your sub-optimal condition is the individuals “inability” to make the right “judgement call” or decision.schopenhauer1

    Consider Buddhist Analogues of Sin and Grace.

    A prefrontal lobotomy works too.180 Proof

    'I'd rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy' ~ Kenney Everett.
  • Book273
    2
    an animal that doesn’t have linguistic based, conceptual, heuristic self-talk cognition.schopenhauer1

    How exactly do you know that? I certainly do not.

    Just because I cannot understand the animal does not mean that it, and others of it's kind, cannot understand it. I notice that birds in my yard very quickly communicate with more distant birds when I have renewed the water during hot dry weather. My dogs dream, bark and growl in their sleep, and have food preferences, as well as preferred sleeping spots. As do my cats. They communicate with me as best they can, likely far more eloquently than I am able to deduce. That is a communication problem, not an intelligence problem. When my dog behaves poorly he certainly responds in a dejected, embarrassed manner which would support his self-talk of behaving poorly.
  • schopenhauer1
    16


    Other animals don’t self talk any more than we use echo location to find food. It is a very specific kind of internal linguistic ability. Anyways, To focus on this aspect of what I’m saying is to miss the point entirely.
    If you don’t think humans have evolved certain traits different from other animals, I can’t help you. You’re now playing around with the very idea of difference. A fly is a whale is a chimp is a dog is a human. No differences.
  • TheMadFool
    26
    @schopenhauer1 As I've already mentioned this to you before, you're like md and most others do completely ignoring the dynamic (video) quality of reality and opting to look at it as a static (photograph) frame. Indeed what you say can't be denied - higher cognitive abilities lead to amplification/aggravation of suffering as self-awareness, an aspect of such abilities, adds another layer to the experience of agony. An analogy seems to be in order. A car gets in an accident and is now totalled but now you're told it's your car. The damage to the car is compounded by the sense of personal loss (suffering literally doubled). I think the well known phrase "adding insult to injury" is perfect for the occasion. All this is not new to you or anyone so I might've stated the obvious.

    Anyway, coming back to the dynamic vs static distinction I referred to, the suffering multiplied in humans (cognitively "superior") essentially becomes the impetus for a call to change, the hope being a change for the better. This change we desire originates in the higher cognitive centers which is also the the very means by which the change we desire can be achieved. All this - plan + implement plan - takes time (I spent an entire hour in a f**king traffic jam :grimace: :angry: ) but what needs to be noted is the dynamic quality of reality as it were - it's a process not a state. Once we become cognizant of this simple fact, we realize that, yes, it's bad but it doesn't have to stay that way. The winds of change have blown, are blowing, and will blow.
  • 180 Proof
    41
    Shadowboxing with strawmen again, I see.

    :100:
  • magritte
    2
    So with most other animals, instincts/drives often take the place of heuristics to come to a decisionschopenhauer1

    A categorical distinction between man and animal can be drawn if you like. But that distinction is neither psychological nor genetic. You have to seek other grounds.

    Like other animals, we are also instinctively and emotionally driven in making most quick decisions. Reasoning takes time and is subject to omissions and errors resulting in questionable decisions.

    What the crucial difference is is that we are social animals with spoken and written language. Our intellect in limited areas (but sadly not in philosophy) has grown exponentially over the generations due to cultural (mostly scientific and technical) advances that are retained and built upon. Isolated from culture, we would be less adapt than almost all animals. In fact, without our technological meddling with global environment, we might be one of the most vulnerable of all species.

    Psychologically, we are not superior to other higher mammals in emotional capability nor in the suffering from the effects of psychological damage. To experience this, it is enough to pay a lengthy visit to a local animal shelter. Just look at the animals as they come in before triage. On the happier side, house cats are extremely aware of human emotions and use that superiority to manipulate their owners to reach 'balance'.

    Talking of balance, what do you mean by balance? Is this along some hidden scale that we are all to grant you, or can you be more specific? This could be a static or dynamic balance, like the bottom or the extreme top of possible motion of a playground swing. Heraclitean opposites are always in motion and are always in balance. A Hegelian balance one might be the static center support of a seesaw. I assume you have something better in mind?
  • schopenhauer1
    16
    What the crucial difference is is that we are social animals with spoken and written language. Our intellect in limited areas (but sadly not in philosophy) has grown exponentially over the generations due to cultural (mostly scientific and technical) advances that are retained and built upon. Isolated from culture, we would be less adapt than almost all animals. In fact, without our technological meddling with global environment, we might be one of the most vulnerable of all species.magritte

    While I agree, you make it seem as if other animals have the capacity for this kind of exponential cultural expansion. They don't. As you state, we have linguistic brains that are also highly deliberative. In other words, where other animals rely on more instinctual programs, much of our decision making is volitional. We chose to do this, then do that. This doesn't mean that I am not denying that other animals can have preferences (shade over sun, this food over that), nor does it mean that humans don't have certain instincts (reflexes, tendencies, etc.). Nor am I denying many animals are capable of emotions like joy and sadness. The fact that you might think I am denying any of those things are more a reflection of your reflexive response and not looking at what I am trying to say.. However, due to our brains, we are highly deliberative and have self-reflection (not the same as the "self" test). Thus, due to our particular evolutionary path, we also have the problems I stated in the OP.

    All the burden is on our thought-processes, how we deliberate and interact with the socio-physical environment. This leads to that much more psychological stress. This situation is almost maladaptive to an extent.schopenhauer1

    Following upon this, there is one respect in which brutes show real wisdom when compared with us — Arthur Schopenhauer, On the Suffering of the World

    And as Schopenhauer stated, I am not downplaying animals and their being. Rather, like Schopenhauer I am admiring that they are more tranquil, more "at home". Yes, we are from nature, but we seem not at home in it. And no, thoughts of beautiful natural landscapes, and living in the woods is not what I mean here. I am not talking some Romantic Rousseauan/Thoreauean "return to nature". Rather, I am saying our very minds, how they operate, make it an impossibility. We sort of try to get at "it" with the idea of meditation, restfulness, sleep, etc. But it's not quite the same. It's not that we work-to-survive, we "know" we work-to-survive. We could do otherwise at any time, though we may not like the consequences. The very need to improve is the dissatisfaction we are feeling at the present. Time is pressing upon us and we know it, moving us forward, dissatisfied. You can give me all the optimistic bullshit you want, and that doesn't change what is the case. As Schopenhauer stated:

    The whole foundation on which our existence rests is the present—the ever-fleeting present. It lies, then, in the very nature of our existence to take the form of constant motion, and to offer no possibility of our ever attaining the rest for which we are always striving. We are like a man running downhill, who cannot keep on his legs unless he runs on, and will inevitably fall if he stops; or, again, like a pole balanced on the tip of one's finger; or like a planet, which would fall into its sun the moment it ceased to hurry forward on its way. Unrest is the mark of existence.

    In a world where all is unstable, and nought can endure, but is swept onwards at once in the hurrying whirlpool of change; where a man, if he is to keep erect at all, must always be advancing and moving, like an acrobat on a rope—in such a world, happiness is inconceivable. How can it dwell where, as Plato says, continual Becoming and never Being is the sole form of existence? In the first place, a man never is happy, but spends his whole life in striving after something which he thinks will make him so; he seldom attains his goal, and when he does, it is only to be disappointed; he is mostly shipwrecked in the end, and comes into harbor with masts and rigging gone. And then, it is all one whether he has been happy or miserable; for his life was never anything more than a present moment always vanishing; and now it is over.
    — Arthur Schopenhauer- The Vanity of Existence

    I think this addresses @180 Proof and @Book273
  • baker
    8
    Zapffe's view is that humans are born with an overdeveloped skill (understanding, self-knowledge) which does not fit into nature's design. The human craving for justification on matters such as life and death cannot be satisfied, hence humanity has a need that nature cannot satisfy. The tragedy, following this theory, is that humans spend all their time trying not to be human. The human being, therefore, is a paradox. — https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Wessel_Zapffe#Philosophical_work

    Darling, let's watch an episode of a reality show (I have in mind one that starts with K, but pretty much any one will do), and you will be proven wrong on the spot.
  • baker
    8
    But ultimately the burden is that of self-hood, and that is inextricably part of the human condition.Wayfarer

    Some are born to sweet delight, some are born to endless night.
  • 180 Proof
    41
    No doubt, had Schopenhauer been a classical epicurean (or kynic), he would have better(?) understood happiness (unlearning / reducing miseries) and perhaps been happier (less self-immiserating) a greater portion of his long life.
  • Wayfarer
    21
    I've read in the brief biographical sketch of Schopenhauer that after passing through a period of depression, in the last period of Schopenhauer's life he was quite a happy man. Lived at a hotel or boarding house and was apparently quite sociable and an excellent conversationalist. He felt he his life's work had been published and would stand the test of time.

    Some are born to sweet delight, some are born to endless night.baker

    You think there's a reason behind that or that it's just brute fact?
  • 180 Proof
    41
    Well, if ever you're truly interested, I recommend either (or both)

    Schopenhauer A Biography, David E. Cartwright
    Schopenhauer and the Wild Years of Philosophy, Rudiger Safranski

    to help better contextualize his smugly contented later years of "sudden" fame and acclaim for which Schopenhauer had curmudgeonly waited (yearned) almost forty years.
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.