'There is no joy in the tavern as on the road thereto' — dog

As St. Catherine of Siena put it, "All the way to heaven is heaven."

Ok, so, expand here:

But you are missing the point of how I phrased it. — schopenhauer1

And please, bringing up 10 years experience is obviously not a 100% innocent ploy. Don't placate me with histrionics.

Ah yes, those oxcytocin feelings of love.. that doesn't last, is not sustained, life moves forward, the novelty wears off. In fact, it is these type of enthrallments that beget more life which brings more instrumental existence on a new person. — schopenhauer1

What comes to my mind is the way that lust/curiosity transforms (with compatibility) into what's called love: trust, friendship, warmth rather than excitement. The woman well known and much loved gets cast to some degree as a mother. She's no longer the unknown frontier. Her body might be great, but it's no longer a wonderland for him. It's territory that only becomes exciting within the act or when possession is threatened. (Jealousy sex is psychedelic.) (Yeah, it's occurred to me that I might just be an endlessly ambivalent jerk. Nevertheless, I think I speak from 10 above average quality years of marital experience. Folks is complex in they minds.)

The friendship can be great, but it's not quite like a great friendship with another man. You have to argue with this chick about how to arrange the household and where and how to be. It's like democracy. It's the least worst system perhaps. Sometimes it's paradise. You look over at her to see her reaction to some good TV. Instead of staring at one another, you look out on the world together.

Doesn't have to lead to children, but of course for many it does. I'll let others speak of the satisfactions and frustrations of parenthood. I do love petting the silly bitch who sleeps on my couch. (I don't mean my wife. She doesn't sleep on the couch.)

As St. Catherine of Siena put it, "All the way to heaven is heaven." — Bitter Crank

Nice.

And please, bringing up 10 years experience is obviously not a 100% innocent ploy. Don't placate me with histrionics. — Noble Dust

You are getting unpleasant and troll-like at this point. What do you want from me, sir? There is no innocent ploy... just that as far as these forums are concerned, my positions are fairly consistent. It doesn't have to do with experience, just how long I've been saying similar points of view.

As far as your question about expanding on my phrasing.. I said earlier:

Whether life is a loaded question is something prior to me asking about it.

So the thread is "What do you live for everyday".. Yes, I think there is an answer, and perhaps I had something in mind along the lines of instrumentality. I thought you essentially had it right with your first paragraph there. As far as the second one that we have been circling, I don't really understand. Based on the consistency of your other threads, I would think you are mostly in agreement, but perhaps you also are showing disagreement for the sake of getting some dialectic out of me. You want something from me, that I am not providing, I don't know.. so again, what is it you want from me?

10+ years on this and the previous forum — schopenhauer1

Oh dear, you've been saying the same things for 10+ years like a broken record? >:O

You are getting unpleasant and troll-like at this point. — schopenhauer1

Right, suggesting your motives aren't 100% pure for bringing up your 10+ years experience on the forums is certainly troll-like behavior.

Based on the consistency of your other threads, — schopenhauer1

Wait, you've read my threads, none of which I can remember you responding to, but you think I'm in agreement with your overall position? That's definitely not correct.

You want something from me, that I am not providing, I don't know.. so again, what is it you want from me? — schopenhauer1

What I want is a point-by-point defense of your nihilistic views.

Oh dear, you've been saying the same things for 10+ years like a broken record? >:O — Agustino

I did say consistent right? Hey, you may have a protege, it looks like your style here :p.

Hey, you may have a protege, it looks like your style here :p. — schopenhauer1

Ok, no. Agustino has a lot to learn from me, not the other way around.

a protege — schopenhauer1

Which protegé I have many, you being just one of them >:O

I did say consistent right? — schopenhauer1

>:O >:O >:O did you not get bored for 10 years to be saying the same thing? I mean one understands for 1 year, 2 years, maybe even 3! But for 10+ years?! Even a boring person would get bored. Not to mention that your efforts had a 0% success rate! Imagine! Toiling for 10+ years, and no followers to show for it!

Ok, no. Agustino has a lot to learn from me, not the other way around. — Noble Dust

You should bless me with your wisdom then :D

I have.

Hey, futility is my theme, so why not.

Right, suggesting your motives aren't 100% pure for bringing up your 10+ years experience on the forums is certainly troll-like behavior. — Noble Dust

I'm not saying your trolling- just "troll-like" behavior.. Something to rile for the sake of riling.

Wait, you've read my threads, none of which I can remember you responding to, but you think I'm in agreement with your overall position? That's definitely not correct. — Noble Dust

Honestly, I'm just remembering a thread where we discussed suicide. Just a note, I do not usually identify as nihilist, but a philosophical pessimist of sorts, as nihilism has too many meanings depending on context. Philosophical Pessimism and association with Schopenhauer is more up my alley.

What I want is a point-by-point defense of your nihilistic views. — Noble Dust

Was your second paragraph about me making a point-by-point defense of nihilism? I've said plenty, and can copy and paste a number of things I would probably be repeating. So, why don't we change it up. Why don't YOU state a position, and we can go from there. You started to with your nice paragraph about labels and such at which I agreed. But if you have a point that you would like to make, make it.

What comes to my mind is the way that lust/curiosity transforms (with compatibility) into what's called love: trust, friendship, warmth rather than excitement. The woman well known and much loved gets cast to some degree as a mother. She's no longer the unknown frontier. Her body might be great, but it's no longer a wonderland for him. It's territory that only becomes exciting within the act or when possession is threatened. (Jealousy sex is psychedelic.) (Yeah, it's occurred to me that I might just be an endlessly ambivalent jerk. Nevertheless, I think I speak from 10 above average quality years of marital experience. Folks is complex in they minds.)

The friendship can be great, but it's not quite like a great friendship with another man. You have to argue with this chick about how to arrange the household and where and how to be. It's like democracy. It's the least worst system perhaps. Sometimes it's paradise. You look over at her to see her reaction to some good TV. Instead of staring at one another, you look out on the world together.

Doesn't have to lead to children, but of course for many it does. I'll let others speak of the satisfactions and frustrations of parenthood. I do love petting the silly bitch who sleeps on my couch. (I don't mean my wife. She doesn't sleep on the couch.) — dog

Day in day out...Granted, better with a significant other, but still the same instrumental existence. You had it more accurate with moving of furniture than the starry-eyed narrative. Not to mention, relationships cause a lot of strife- getting them, keeping them, maintaining them, losing them. This falls under contingent suffering- some people are more fortunate than others in many "goods" of life. Who is to say what new person brought into the world will have more of these goods or very few. Either way, the repetitious nature of our striving wills cause no lasting satisfaction, just a new object of striving.

Day in day out...Granted, better with a significant other, but still the same instrumental existence. — schopenhauer1

Is it better? I can't compare anymore. I don't remember being single very well. Different comforts, different discomforts.

Either way, the repetitious nature of our striving wills cause no lasting satisfaction, just a new object of striving. — schopenhauer1

Indeed, no satisfaction lasts. Nor any pain. There is no substance. Everything is smoke and music. Waves of Heaven, waves of Hell, waves of Blah.

For each wave its voices and philosophy. The Hell wave sings a song of anti-natalism. The Heaven wave sings a song of reproduction and passing the torch. The Blah wave sings this song of waves and their singing, neutral on the matter.

For each wave its voices and philosophy. The Hell wave sings a song of anti-natalism. The Heaven wave sings a song of reproduction and passing the torch. The Blah wave sings this song of waves and their singing, neutral on the matter. — dog

But there doesn't have to be waves in the first place. Why should we experience the waves?

But there doesn't have to be waves in the first place. Why should we experience the waves? — schopenhauer1

Why be born? Why leave early once we are born? We can dig for reasons. My point is that these are the voices of moods. If I get disgusted with life, then I'll agree with you. If things turn sweet again, that why will have a largely ineffable answer. And you won't believe the words that I do find. Not unless you are also lifted by a mood.

I have read bad-mood-writing in a good mood and the reverse. It's illuminating. Every passion has a philosophy. Life-love, death-love. If a mood lasts long enough, we begin to believe in substance again. We think that we are simpler than we are and more fixed. (So it seems to me.)

My point is that these are the voices of moods. If I get disgusted with life, then I'll agree with you. If things turn sweet again, that why will have a largely ineffable answer. And you won't believe the words that I do find. Not unless you are also lifted by a mood.

I have read bad-mood-writing in a good mood and the reverse. It's illuminating. Every passion has a philosophy. Life-love, death-love. If a mood lasts long enough, we begin to believe in substance again. We think that we are simpler than we are and more fixed. (So it seems to me.) — dog

Do you think it is short sighted to think that the good moods mean that life must be good? Can evaluation be separated from mood? If not, why not? Why is it that new people should experience life? Because you are in a good mood? Does mood justify bringing new people in existence? What is the point of more people experiencing life? If my premise is life is survival, comfort, finding entertainment- why should those things be experienced by yet a new person? This is just in reference to structural suffering (see previous posts for definition).

How about contingent harms? This would be the classical Western view of "good experience' and "bad experience". Why do the good experiences make up for the bad ones? What about the unforeseen bad experiences? What about the variables of people's psyches, physiology and circumstances that make some people prone to worse experiences than others?

Do you think it is short sighted to think that the good moods mean that life must be good? Can evaluation be separated from mood? If not, why not? — schopenhauer1

To be clear there is a continuity of personality through moods. A good mood doesn't wipe out years of linguistic and physical habit. But a person in love can be terrified of death as nothingness. They can be terrified that the species will go extinct and the experience of being in love (and so on) lost forever. Reproduction is our flight from death. Sexual love is arguably our sweetest pleasure. No big surprise that this kind of system would be evolved.

And in a truly bad mood that sees life as a net evil, the fear is that we won't go extinct. I may escape to the grave, but I am also in the others not yet born. Occasionally there's a story about a parent killing their kids and themselves. I can only understand this in terms of a depression that is (in its view) protecting the children from suffering. They all flee to death together. I remember a story where the parent was the father. He did the apparently evil dirty work. He took the guilt and evil on his shoulders to do the misunderstood good. As awful as the crime is, this is one of the more generous readings of the father's motives.

Does mood justify bringing new people in existence? What is the point of more people experiencing life? If my premise is life is survival, comfort, finding entertainment- why should those things be experienced by yet a new person? — schopenhauer1

As above, the individual in a good mood values life. He or she wants to share the experience as a net good. If this person is abstract, he or she may want to give humanity more time. It's possible that most suffering will be eradicated. It's possible that our species is in its technological infancy. We can know start playing with our own code. We are close perhaps to leaving this planet. If we are still here a million years from now, then these times might be the stuff of scary bedtimes stories. But we can only get there is (foolish or not) we persevere. A hopeful (and abstract) person might find extra motivation in this.

How about contingent harms? This would be the classical Western view of "good experience' and "bad experience". Why do the good experiences make up for the bad ones? What about the unforeseen bad experiences? What about the variables of people's psyches, physiology and circumstances that make some people prone to worse experiences than others? — schopenhauer1

Indeed. In a bad mood I tend to think of all the terrible stuff that could happen as well as the terrible stuff that will happen. I also feel for life's bigger losers (we're all at least small or medium sized losers). In a good mood I'm absorbed in the object or project. In this approximately neutral mood I can turn things around in my mind abstractly.

You may not believe me, but I think I understand your position. I think I could argue from an approximation of it. But I could also argue the other side. In my life, my 'real' position varies with my mood. I may write the feel good novel of the year and then get depressed and hang myself. It's possible. The hanging wouldn't necessarily be any more definition of my true nature than the feel good novel. A final action doesn't necessarily have any extra weight, just as death-bed mumblings aren't the sum of a man's thinking. I've known artists whose art was joyful to kill themselves. I've known depressive types live to be old men. I think lots of artist types swing back and forth from higher Heavens to lower Hells.

To be clear there is a continuity of personality through moods. A good mood doesn't wipe out years of linguistic and physical habit. But a person in love can be terrified of death as nothingness. They can be terrified that the species will go extinct and the experience of being in love (and so on) lost forever. Reproduction is our flight from death. Sexual love is arguably our sweetest pleasure. No big surprise that this kind of system would be evolved.

And in a truly bad mood that sees life as a net evil, the fear is that we won't go extinct. I may escape to the grave, but I am also in the others not yet born. Occasionally there's a story about a parent killing their kids and themselves. I can only understand this in terms of a depression that is (in its view) protecting the children from suffering. They all flee to death together. I remember a story where the parent was the father. He did the apparently evil dirty work. He took the guilt and evil on his shoulders to do the misunderstood good. As awful as the crime is, this is one of the more generous readings of the father's motives. — dog

I'm going to reply here with a reply I had to Bitter Crank in another thread:

People read into their happy emotions too easily. Sex happens at a time of optimal contentment. Feelings of oxytocin start pouring in and dopamine and all of a sudden every care in the world is washed away in ideas of future ideals of two parents and babies in household, etc.

Let's back up though. What does my term of instrumentality really mean? It means that the world keeps turning, the universe keeps expanding, that energy keeps on transferring, and entropy keeps on its steady path. That is to say, that happiness is always on the horizon (hope swinging I mentioned in other posts). When goals are "obtained" are often not as good or too fleeting compared to the effort to get it (yes yes, eye roll eye roll... it's not the goal but the process to get there BS., not buying it..just slogans to make people not think about it).. we still need to maintain ourselves, our bodies, our minds, our comforts, our anxieties, our neuroses, our social lives, our intellectual minds, etc. etc. etc. It's all just energy put forth to keep maintaining ourselves, that does not stop until death. Why ALL of THIS WORK AND ENERGY? Does it really need to be started anew for a next generation?

We really are living in the eternal twilight of Christian sentiments. There is "something" special that we are DOING here.. It all MEANS something to "FEEL" to "ACHIEVE" to "INTELLECTUALIZE" to "CONNECT".. all buzzwords of anchoring mechanisms to latch onto as our WILLFUL nature rushes forward, putting forth more energy but for to stay alive, keep occupied, and stay comfortable.. All the while being exposed to depridations, sickness, annoyances, and painful circumstances that inevitably befall us.. It doesn't NEED to be expanded to more people.

Indeed. In a bad mood I tend to think of all the terrible stuff that could happen as well as the terrible stuff that will happen. I also feel for life's bigger losers (we're all at least small or medium sized losers). In a good mood I'm absorbed in the object or project. In this approximately neutral mood I can turn things around in my mind abstractly.

You may not believe me, but I think I understand your position. I think I could argue from an approximation of it. But I could also argue the other side. In my life, my 'real' position varies with my mood. I may write the feel good novel of the year and then get depressed and hang myself. It's possible. The hanging wouldn't necessarily be any more definition of my true nature than the feel good novel. A final action doesn't necessarily have any extra weight, just as death-bed mumblings aren't the sum of a man's thinking. I've known artists whose art was joyful to kill themselves. I've known depressive types live to be old men. I think lots of artist types swing back and forth from higher Heavens to lower Hells. — dog

But again, should mood dictate evaluation of life. Is it possible to prevent suffering for future generations sans our own mood at the time of evaluation? It may be hard, but if the argument from structural and contingent suffering is taken into consideration, perhaps it can.

Believe it or not, I get your point. In a good mood, you may lose perspective. Life seems to be going well, so why would I tempt fate by thinking of its negative qualities? This just belies our superstitious natures.. "Best not tempt the gods by thinking of the negatives, in the throes of my positive experience". I get it, man meets women, falls in love, doesn't understand why the world is so bad. Again, the question is can humans separate evaluations from their particular moods? You seem to be indicating that this is an absolute no.

When goals are "obtained" are often not as good or too fleeting compared to the effort to get it (yes yes, eye roll eye roll... it's not the goal but the process to get there BS., not buying it..just slogans to make people not think about it).. we still need to maintain ourselves, our bodies, our minds, our comforts, our anxieties, our neuroses, our social lives, our intellectual minds, etc. etc. etc. It's all just energy put forth to keep maintaining ourselves, that does not stop until death. Why ALL of THIS WORK AND ENERGY? Does it really need to be started anew for a next generation? — schopenhauer1

This is an excellent description of a mode. I've been there, and I may be there again. But the slogans that this mood doesn't buy are the truth of another mode.

We really are living in the eternal twilight of Christian sentiments. There is "something" special that we are DOING here.. It all MEANS something to "FEEL" to "ACHIEVE" to "INTELLECTUALIZE" to "CONNECT".. all buzzwords of anchoring mechanisms to latch onto as our WILLFUL nature rushes forward, putting forth more energy but for to stay alive, keep occupied, and stay comfortable.. All the while being exposed to depridations, sickness, annoyances, and painful circumstances that inevitably befall us.. It doesn't NEED to be expanded to more people. — schopenhauer1

This captures the religious/philosophical quest. It's a part-time though important game. That small part which is not dog seeks god.

I can't see a clear distance from your position and a late version of this quest. Aren't 'life is suffering' and 'the world is evil' connected to our Christian heritage? Renouncing the evil will to live is an old-school spiritual mission, right? I can imagine a pessimist finding out he is going to die peacefully in his sleep that night and being annoyed that he hasn't finished his pessimist masterpiece.

Ho do we get beyond words and poses? I think we have to look at actions to see beliefs. Some people will suffer greatly in order to survive a threat to their future. Others hang themselves in a situation that others from the outside consider the dream itself. You might call the first person the victim of an illusion. Others would call the other person the victim of an illusion. But who is neutral here?

The project I'm immersed in as I write this involves something understanding as many perspectives as possible (breadth and flexibility of consciousness). I could boil this down further to the pursuit/maintenance of sex appeal and charisma. Philosophy 'should' make one a more beautiful animal, let's say. And sometimes the animal doesn't provide the raw material. Then philosophy helps one die. (That's the voice of a perspective. It sounds good now and might not later.)

In a good mood, you may lose perspective. — schopenhauer1

Sure, you lose the perspective of the bad mood. And in the bad mood you lose the perspective of the good mood.

A lazy but down-to-earth vision of science is (as said elsewhere) technology that works whether one believes in it or not. Philosophy and religion are still valuable to individuals, but I think their effectiveness depends on an emotional investment therein (on believing in them via action especially). This is itself the voice of a perspective. Defining science isn't the work of science. But it is a perspective that keeps its own fragility in mind and strives for expansion on one hand and adaptation on the other. [None of this matters to the person who really wants to die, though. It looks like everything 'rational' is grounded in the threat/promise of the future.]