Pessimism is ''sadder'' than nihilism.

Pessimism involves mental anguish arising from the perceived meaninglessness of life.

Nihilism, on the other hand, can be ''liberating''. Denying substance or meaning to everythin frees me from the pain of meaninglessness.

One could say the pessimism is a failure to accept truth. A hope for meaning lurks in some corner of the pessimist's psyche.

The nihilist has accepted truth - a world devoid of any palpable meaning/purpose - and is content with this ''fact''.

What are your thoughts? — krishnamurti

Thought is not going to solve our problems, because these problems have come into being through the activities of thought. And to bring about a fundamental, radical, revolutionary, psychological change is our main problem during these talks and discussions. — Krishnamurti

Very simply put, thought is the response of memory, the past. The past is an infinity or a second ago. When thought acts it is this past which is acting as memory, as experience, as knowledge, as opportunity. All will is desire based on this past and directed towards pleasure or the avoidance of pain. When thought is functioning it is the past, therefore there is no new living at all; it is the past living in the present, modifying itself and the present. — Krishnamurti

An occupied mind is not free, spontaneous, and only in spontaneity can there be discovery. An occupied mind is self-enclosing; it is unapproachable, not vulnerable, and therein lies its security. Thought, by its very structure, is self-isolating; it cannot be made vulnerable. Thought cannot be spontaneous, it can never be free. Thought is the continuation of the past, and that which continues cannot be free. There is freedom only in ending. — Krishnamurti

I'm not very optimistic about the whole endeavour.

Absolutely not. Pessimism is about assessing the reality of the situation and understanding what is going on at a fundamental level. Nihilism is used in too many different ways to pit it against specifically, Philosophical Pessimism. Philosophical Pessimism generally views existence as not good due to structural and/or contingent reasons. For example,

Being a human means coping with systemic futility. Systemic futility comprises:

1) Repetitive acts of living
2) The hedonic treadmill phenomena of finding "novel" goods in life that can't last
3) Being deprived of some preference or state at almost all time (deprivationalism)
4) The emptiness behind all pursuits

Being a human means coping with the conundrum of death which is the idea that:

1) Once you are living, you can never be released with death as there will be no "you" to feel the release of death.
2) Much of what is thought of relief is really just ideation- a projection of experience after death

This long-range emptiness to all projects I call "instrumentality". It is instrumental "EN TOTATLE" in that we pursue but with no final satisfaction to any particular goal, just a general striving that underlies our linguistic-conceptual minds. Conceptually we can break this general Will or Striving into three basic categories of motivation: survival (in a cultural and/or economic context), seeking comfort/maintenance (e.g. you clean your house, you brush your teeth, you make your bed, etc. etc.), fleeing boredom (e.g. you get lonely, you pursue a hobby, you make art, you take a walk, etc. etc). All the most complex goals/technologies/outputs come from a combination of those three underlying motivations. However, these motivations are simply conceptual breakdowns of our originary Striving/Will that manifests from within us in the first place. It is an instrumental moving-forward-but-for-no-reason. All goals are subsumed by the simple sheer need in our waking daily lives for striving/willing.

So yes, we slap on a label after-the-fact for what we are doing it for. The problem is, that we are an existential creature. Whereas other animals may have motivations of survival (and perhaps maintenance/boredom for higher level animals), they are not self-reflective to our degree. We are the animals that know that we simply live to live to live. Our conceptual minds turn in on ourselves and there is no easy way out by slapping a label on why we do anything. We simply keep the continual striving for survival/maintenance/boredom-avoidance going to the next day, and the next day, and the next day, and so on and so on and so on. Meanwhile, we are plagued by the contingencies of our circumstances- mental/physical conditions, uncomfortable circumstances, tragedies, and what not.

Hence I categorize suffering into two main camps- structural suffering and contingent suffering.

Structural suffering is the instrumental nature of existence- the striving that is never satisfied, the motivations of want/desire (survival/comfort/maintenance/boredom) that lead to the repetitious Sisyphean aspect of existence (yet another day of survival, comfort seeking, boredom fleeing).

Contingent suffering is the circumstances which can be different for each person is identified with classical notions of suffering in the West (i.e. circumstances of physical/mental pain, circumstances of negative situations, etc. etc.). Contingent suffering is the suffering that is contingent on situational context. These are things like disease, illness, natural disasters, physical and emotional anguish, etc. We all know that some people "have it better" than others in terms of illnesses, bad experiences, suffering experienced etc.

The classical retort to structural suffering is to minimize one's purview such that you get "caught up" in something. Thus the bigger picture of existential issues will be ignored/suppressed. Thus, analyzing a spreadsheet for 8 hours, or figuring out an engineering differential equation, or writing a paper on the philosophy of biology, will keep one's mind on intra-worldly affairs and not on the global situation of our existential place. Thus, just go play a video game, just go read that book on evolution, networks, form and function, language, and logic, write that paper on biophysics, or just go knit a pair of socks.

The classical retort for contingent suffering is Nietzschean- Live life like its your work of art. All the suffering one experiences just adds to the art to make life its own special thing for that individual. It is what makes life more challenging, and challenges are somehow transcendentally good (for some reason). I guess the reasoning is that it gives life its flavor and stories to tell about oneself? People can post-facto embrace life because of the challenges it affords them to overcome and make into their life story. This to me is a turning away from the reality of the suffering. N wouldn't have to write a response so vigorously against Schopenhauer if he didn't realize the import of the suffering itself. That it is something there, and cannot be explained away with exuberant aphorisms of Eternal Returns and Ubermensches.

To me, pessimism is a type of realism.

Why would it be "corrupt," let alone "absolutely" so? Why would it be equated with nihilism?

Pessimism is not a falsity but a truism of existential consideration. ? The world is as you perceive of it and nothing more. I gained a new perspective. Open soul open mind. I finally focused on what's inside.

I think the nihilist is just about the most pathetic being on earth regardless environment and time while a pessimist can be a lot of things. A nihilist is diluded and enjoys it.

I couldn't possibly enjoy being chewed by a crocodile. And when someone exclaims they are a nihilist I feel a bit of disgust. I like those who are regarded pessimists more likely than others, however, if I had to define them I would call them open minded perhaps. ...MORE open minded than the rest.

What is corrupt philosophy? Can't imagine it. A philosopher can be and most likely is corrupt but a philosophy isn't really. At all so it can't be corrupt. Its IDEAS maybe but probably not all of them.

" truism of existential consideration". I'm overwhelmed with questions.:roll:

Do you mean that pessimistic people and ideas somehow take existence and its meaning more seriously? Because thou all intelligent people are pessimistic not all pessimistic people are intelligent. Most are not.

'Open soul open mind'

A person with an open soul must have an open mind but one can have what is called an open mind w/o having a soul at all.

Perhaps you could elaborate on this "most pessimistic people aren't intelligent"? Is it all a hoax? Are personalities masks?

Kurt Vonnegut — 'We are what we pretend to be, so we must be careful about what we pretend to be.'