I suppose, in spite of my curmudgeonly attitude and somewhat generic dissatisfaction, I remain an optimist of sorts. I think the world has plenty to offer humanity, but it is humanity who hurts itself through irrational desire -- a sort of Epicurean move, if you will.

That doesn't necessarily remove existential angst, but there's still a difference between desire and existential angst, I'd wager, and different philosophies apply to both in order that one may be happy.

The first verse of Ecclesiastes and the First Noble Truth. Life is suffering, dissatisfaction, craving, desire, what have you.

I have dealt with plenty of Weltschmerz. Not sure what the cure is, but meditating seems to help, in my case anyway. Makes it easier to say "no" to stuff.

Ah, Weltschmerz. I suppose if one aspires to be a Romantic, one would want to be a Romantic of the German variety. Excess was characteristic of the Romantics, and when it came to excess that of the Germans among them couldn't be exceeded. Who else could manufacture such a concept? "World-Pain." It takes a special kind of person. The Latin taedium vitae doesn't do the trick. What is weariness of life compared to the experience of...World-Pain?

But there's no reason to expect the world and all (or anything) in it to meet our expectations, and so I think it unreasonable to be disappointed or upset that it fails to do so.

Are you old enough to suffer from Weltschmerz? Isn't there some sort of minimum age that one has to be before one can have that problem? I mean, 15 year olds can not claim Weltschmerz; they just haven't been around long enough. I would say, hmmmm, 50 at least, and that might be too young.

Probably you just feel bad much of the time. I wish I could snap my fingers and make all that bad crap go away, but... It didn't work for me the last time I tried it. Life can sometimes be just one fucking thing after another.

I don't think age has much of anything to do with this. Weltschmerz could easily come about by realizing that this is the way it is going to be for. the. rest. of. your. life.

this. is. the. way. it. is. going. to. be. for. the. rest. of. your. life is too full of certitude. I don't know what the rest of the evening has in store for either one of us, let alone the rest of our lives, and neither do you.

This kind of world view was widespread among several romantic authors such as Lord Byron, Giacomo Leopardi, François-René de Chateaubriand, Alfred de Musset, Nikolaus Lenau, Hermann Hesse, and Heinrich Heine. It is also used to denote the feeling of anxiety caused by the ills of the world... the idea that physical reality can never satisfy the demands of the mind.

I bet these giant romantics were thrilled to death with their discovery of Weltschmerz. "Ah HA", they burbled, "here is something we can really use!"

Look, I fully get anxiety, depression, doom and gloom (they are real, real, real), and have had episodes of glomming on to one literary diagnosis or another (like existential nausea). The thing is, some of this stuff just isn't healthy, especially if it feeds into Schmerzen that have quite non-literary causes, which in both our cases seems to be the case.

The idea that physical reality just isn't enough to ever satisfy the demands of the mind is, in a word, bullshit. Yes, Virginia, some literary (and philosophical) movements contain multitudes of bullshit. One needs to clean it off the bottom of one's boots before one comes into the kitchen.

I'm not saying mind and physical reality is the same thing. It's just the idea that "Oh Gawd, my huge mind (It's so HUGE, a la Monty Python) just can't be satisfied by what little there is here in this dreary physical world!!!" is unadulterated romantic bullshit.

You might want to be more careful how you talk to yourself. You may, possibly, be feeding yourself a line of baloney. Now, now, don't get all testy. It happens all the time that people tell themselves negative crap, and then they feel even worse afterward. Why don't you try a more positive line. It might work better.

I see what you're saying. There certainly is a melodramatic teen-angst sort of feel to the idea of Weltschmerz. Romanticism has that problem a lot. Additionally, there's a temptation to use the idea of Weltschmerz as a cover for a "too-hip-for-this-room" attitude, except it's too-hip-for-this-world.

On the other hand, I think there's something legitimate to it as well. Nothing will ever satisfy me, not because there isn't enough stuff, but just because I, as a human, am not the kind of creature that can get to a comfortable place and just stay there. I'll get bored, or the comfortable situation will change.

What I really don't like is when people say, "Oh, you just haven't had enough EXPERIENCES in this wide wonderful world!" People use the term "experience" as a sort of rhetorical foot in the door here, but the fact is that every experience whatsoever goes like this: you feel something, and then it goes away. On the downside, this makes the pleasant experiences seem less worthwhile; on the upside, it makes the bad experiences seem less awful. But overall, that observation seems to push you away from an attitude of "Go get what you need in order to be happy" and more toward "Try not to want stuff so much."

I think that Weltschmerz can be productive, as long as it's a transitional phase. The problem is that you can get caught there because it (sometimes) inflates your ego. I have a lot of Weltschmerz myself, and I find that it only really goes away when I concentrate on "being simple."

What I really don't like is when people say, "Oh, you just haven't had enough EXPERIENCES in this wide wonderful world!" — Pneumenon

I probably sounded a bit like that, judgmental. Sometimes it might be true -- but one would need to know the person to have any idea about that.

I had a long dark stretch, decades ago. I could/would have called it Weltschmerz, had I known the word -- but I did not -- or it hadn't stuck, anyway. We feel what we feel, and if the world feels awful it is awful, and it takes great insight to see the world as not actually awful.

Then a few years ago I emerged into a very sunny period that I am still in -- going on 4 or 5 years now. With any luck, it will last as far as the grave. This time of good feelings isn't due to any virtue or achievement on my part. I am still kind of surprised that I feel this way.

Then a few years ago I emerged into a very sunny period that I am still in -- going on 4 or 5 years now. With any luck, it will last as far as the grave. This time of good feelings isn't due to any virtue or achievement on my part. I am still kind of surprised that I feel this way. — Bitter Crank

That's actually a pretty common phenomena -- there's a sort of U-shaped curve, if happiness could be plotted, when you plot happiness on the y-axis and age on the x-axis; the right end of the u goes higher than the left end, too. At least so saith the happiness studies I've read so far.

The explanation I've seen posited for this curve is two-fold: life stressors, like career and family, begin around 30, and those go away at around 50-60, and then also you start learning how to accept things as they are, rather than being disappointed by what you thought you wanted. So the little things, such as finding a dollar on the street or bumping into a friend, are more appreciated and not looked down upon, and the grand things aren't really desired -- so you end up being happier.

The idea that physical reality just isn't enough to ever satisfy the demands of the mind is, in a word, bullshit. Yes, Virginia, some literary (and philosophical) movements contain multitudes of bullshit. One needs to clean it off the bottom of one's boots before one comes into the kitchen.

I'm not saying mind and physical reality is the same thing. It's just the idea that "Oh Gawd, my huge mind (It's so HUGE, a la Monty Python) just can't be satisfied by what little there is here in this dreary physical world!!!" is unadulterated romantic bullshit. — Bitter Crank

I just want to make sure there isn't a misunderstanding, I think Weltschermz happens to everyone at varying degrees, not just me or certain individuals.

From my perspective, every action we take is a distraction. Without distraction, we inevitably fall into boredom, which feels like the time you were home sick from school and didn't know what to do, and it was cold, gray, and dreary outside. Without distractions, the world becomes a bit heavy to look upon.

I'm not a depressive individual; oftentimes I am enjoying myself, but when it's all said and done, this enjoyment rests upon very shaky architecture that easily comes crashing down either with the presence of pain or the inevitable lack of interest for a topic we experience that leads to boredom.

I'm not saying we can't enjoy life, but to enjoy life is to exist upon the peak of a parabola, oftentimes difficult to obtain and easy to lose. It's so delicate that is leads me to believe that it is unnatural. The meaninglessness behind all of this is what leads to my Weltschmerz, I think, because it essentially makes all of us little rats in a rat race.

rats in a rat race — darthbarracuda

John Steinbeck's term for Weltschmerz was "welshrats". For whatever that's worth.

Thanks for clarifying your situation.

Without distraction, we inevitably fall into boredom — darthbarracuda

So, in your model of personality, we are basically quiescent. Boredom is our basal state, our gravity, which we actively seek to climb or fly out of, but with difficulty. Peak experiences (up there on top of the parabola) are fleeting. Having obtained the parabolic peak, we often lose it and slide back down into the crevasse of boredom. I'm not criticizing what seems to be your view; it is one of a few basic positions. Freud's system was one of dynamic psychological forces in constant interaction, maybe "struggle". fOther personality theories posit that we are sort of inert until needs arise or until we receive external stimulation. We are, in this view, quite passive. Some personality theorists see us in constant motion, perpetually seeking stimulation except to rest.

Some people posit suffering as a constant and inevitable element in human experience (Schopenhauer1, for one); others find adventure seeking and discovery, outward questing, to be our natural state. Still others see our personalities as social constructs, determined extensively by the society we live within. Behaviorists see (saw) behavior as more learned than inherent. I'm sure that a post-modern behaviorist could not feel Weltschmerz, even if her life depended on it.

Maybe all of those theories are true or false, depending on the person and the period in that person's life. Or maybe you were implying exactly that. :-O

I believe that Weltschmerz is roughly the result of a few possible occurrences:

1. The mind in question is full of doubt, lacking in ability, lacking in confidence, lacking in patience, and/or lacking in courage to tackle its ambitions (maybe because it's ambitions are too difficult to achieve), and therefore, afraid of failure and believing them to be impossible, doesn't even try. Instead it falls into disillusionment, and attempts to find an alternative, typically much simpler and easier to achieve, and attempts to be satisfied with that, instead of accepting its ambitions and seeking to fulfill them. The result is termed Weltschmerz.

2. The same can also result from an overbearing of certain cultural moral values, which prevent one from attempting to satisfy or pursue their real ambitions - thereby resulting in disillusionment and attempts to change their desire. For example, it is very likely that a world-conqueror in today's world, especially in the West, feels the bearing of our cultural morality which suggests that it is wrong to mobilise others as means to one's own end.

3. The mind lacks ambition, and/or imagination to grow ambition, and lacking ambition, finds itself bored with the world, as everything it desires is easily achievable.

As Spinoza has written, man's essence is striving/desire. Of course one whose essence OR intellect is currently deficient must necessarily project onto the world this deficiency. To one who functions correctly, one's intellect is used as a means to fuel and fulfill one's striving. Strength of intellect guarantees great ambitions which can never be exhausted, as well as means to strive towards the achievement of these ambitions. For such a one, life is indeed a journey, full of pain and full of joy, a challenge and a way to pleasantly surprise oneself by what one can achieve.

People do vary, and theories depend on what people the theorist had experience with.

If Freud hadn't grown up when and where he did, and provided therapy for a lot of frustrated bourgeois Viennese women, he would probably have come up with a somewhat different theory. (He didn't believe these women had had the rape experiences they related to him. These days, a therapist would practically assume his patients had been raped (one way or another).

Albert Ellis (Rational Emotive Therapy) clearly grew up in a much different environment and time than Sigmund Freud did. Carl Rogers, different time and place, again. B. F. Skinner, ditto.

The various theorists try to account for what they observe, and what they, themselves, believe to be true. Meanwhile, people do what they do, and damn the therapists and theorists.

But there's no reason to expect the world and all (or anything) in it to meet our expectations, and so I think it unreasonable to be disappointed or upset that it fails to do so. — Ciceronianus the White

You live this in practice or does it sound good in a forum? Sometimes I think we are trying to have the best sound bytes for a self-help article. What do we really do vs. what do we want to impress our friends with? I am also talking internally in our minds vs. externally to an audience.

As best I can, I try to have no expectations regarding what isn't in my control. It's a part of stoic practice, or my practice at least. It doesn't mean I never feel disappointed or upset; I'm no Stoic Sage. But it does mean that I'm not overwhelmed by what takes place or how things are. It works for me.

I agree with your assessment, Ciceronianus, that we shouldn't expect the world to revolve around our expectations. Schopenhauer1, you may recall that I argued that to explicitly complain about this is to be existentially narcissistic.

In theory it makes sense, but in reality is truly can be difficult to tame the beast of desire and expectations. It's only natural for humans to be ego-maniacs, and denying this ego can be difficult and sometimes feel artificial.

Sorry, but this reads like 'Think and Grow Rich' 'don't-forget-your-mental-hygeine', self-aggrandizing horseshit.

But philosophy, especially ethics, is largely about mental hygiene and optimisation. What else could it be about?

Think and Grow Rich, and other self-aggrandizing shit is shit precisely because it does not attempt to question its assumptions.

In all likelihood what you call 'welsmertz' are simply habituated neural pathways. I think it's true that you have to re-wire your neural pathways. The good news is, that can be done. That is the finding of neuroplasticity research - whereas it used to be thought the brain was pretty well hard-wired, it has been discovered that it constantly changes according to all manner of inputs. Actually the book I read about it was Train your Mind, Change your Brain.

I guess it depends on what is meant by "mental hygiene ". For me ethics has nothing to do with "optimisation", this notion reeks of 'capital', ethics is all about learning to live well (that is relaxed and free from undue anxiety) in the very midst of the shit.

We can try to let go of our assumptions, but I would say there is no questioning of held assumptions without making new ones. We cannot question all assumptions without suffering paralysis.

I guess it depends on what is meant by "mental hygiene ". For me ethics has nothing to do with "optimisation", this notion reeks of 'capital', ethics is all about learning to live well (that is relaxed and free from undue anxiety) in the very midst of the shit. — John

Well, I'm not sure if living relaxed and free from anxiety is a worthy goal anymore (in-so-far as I see this as an impossibility given human nature). I think if we had achieved this state where we would all be equal, where we all had equal opportunities, where everyone had access to equal amounts of resources, where people didn't have to struggle, and there was no place for anxiety anymore... I would find such a world totally unbearable to live in. I'd much rather die than live in such a world. Life has taste simply because things are unequal and there is struggle. Fighting for equality and all is a worthy goal, but actually achieving it would be the greatest horror. To think that I can do nothing to get ahead of my fellow man is to me incomprehensible. Even the games we play, we keep scores and have a winner and a loser because otherwise they wouldn't be fun anymore.

Can't help but agree with John here: these sorts of discussions tend to reek of personal psycology disguised as philosophy. I don't doubt that there are some interesting things to be said about the place of suffering in the world, or about pessimism and so on but by gosh, there's a whole world of philosophy out there that can be explored as well: questions about the genesis of forms, about the possibility of exercising political agency, about the links between movement, affect and thought, about how perception works, about how individuation occurs, about the production of sense, about the vicissitudes of language, about the limits and possibilities imposed by the body, about the nature of time, about what constitutes ethics, about the relation between empiricism and rationalism, about the status of scientific discovery and so on. Compared to these issues, this sort of woe-is-me everything-is-suffering threads just seem to be bottom-of-the-barrel stuff, the sort of thing you talk about when one is unprepared to engage with the wider world of philosophy.

Like @Ciceronianus the White - with whom I agree with here :O - the whole thing just feels like making a mountain over a molehill of thwarted, unrealistic expectations to begin with. Also, I tend to be of a rather chirpy disposition, so when people say that everything is suffering or whatever, these claims leave me utterly indifferent. Anyway, long story short, this stuff generally tends to strike me as philosophically uninteresting - or at least stifling and narrow of concern - and these are the reasons why.

Mirabile dictu! And it's even a good thing on which to agree.

I don't know, SX. To say that suffering is a minor issue, while claiming that a set of academic issues circumscribed by a tradition of philosophy roughly originating in the 1920s in Western Europe is the far more interesting fare, seems dubious to me. Much of what you list seems like 'play' to me -- you can sell books about it, but life's difficulties go on whether you read them or not, and life stays pretty much the same no matter what position you take on them. They exist in academia, but there is more to life than academia, and suffering exists beyond it as well, whereas 'how individuation occurs' does not. And please, don't respond to this saying that it does. Please.

[In other words, your 'wider world of philosophy' is actually quite insular, and you are blind to this because you spend large portions of your life reading about that insular tradition.]

...about the possibility of exercising political agency... — StreetlightX

OH, hey, good topic. Been looking for one.

But... Isn't it the reeking personal psychology (all that stuff between one's ears, between the cradle and the coffin) that does philosophy, that lives a life--one with more or less agency, more or fewer ethics, receiving/perceiving/deceiving/believing/positing/disposing and all that?

Philosophy seems (to me) to be too close to reeking psychology to be sniffy about it. Granted, one can be mired in alls sorts of personal, reeking, psychological shit and still turn out novels, plays, books, articles, monographs, emails, meals, batches of paper work, and so on. But... not everybody is sufficiently compartmentalized to do that.

Agreed with your comments towards SX :)

I'd say that's exactly why SX right. What exactly do we gain in "Woe is me" suffering? Just more anxiety and pain. We double down on suffering by worrying that we need to be without of it. Not content merely with the pain of our many instances of suffering, we enshrine the failure to escape all suffering as our inadequacy we must forever be tortured for.

Philosophically, it is uninteresting because the only insight it offers is how to feel more pain.

Bingo, Willow. It is existentially narcissistic to expect the world to revolve around the ego.

Unfortunately it truly is difficult to tame one's expectations, especially when surrounded by a society that continually makes poor decisions regarding existence, which leads to Weltschermz.

There's a part of me that agrees, and a part of me that wonders.

The part of me that wonders is asking: How do you feel about the works of Camus, or Sartre?

I just want to hear from you, more than anything. I don't have a critique or anything, nor do I know if I will have one after you respond. I would just like to know what you think at this point, if you don't mind responding.