And my argument is, whether this is true or not, it's not rational to keep saying it over and over because that doesn't accomplish anything. What's rational is to try to do something about it. — Hippyhead

why is doing something rational?

Sorry, blatantly false statement. Once it's seen that suffering is made of thought, the door is open to do something about it. You already saw this when you said failure is subjective. — Hippyhead

yes, and its subjectiveness means one man's happiness is anothers suffering, that's ultimately inevitable, there is no happiness without suffering, hence its just a layer, a mask upon suffering, a tool in which the irrational wille zum leben utilizes to keep you here, to reproduce.

The child is most likely starving because most people have not bothered to try to manage their suffering, or have no idea how, and thus seek to fill the empty void in their souls with various forms of greed. — Hippyhead

Hate, and greed, are the main tools of this will, they inevitably cause the child to suffer, even if there were no children starving, a new problem will arise, everyone in the big picture will utlimately be suffering

I don't object to such a weighing process, so long as it is subservient to a serious attempt to maximize the good and minimize the bad. I do object to such a process if it is a replacement for constructive action. — Hippyhead

why do things need to maximize good? why do so?

why is doing something rational — Augustusea

Well, if we actually want to suffer, then I suppose it isn't. Let's take a poll. Everybody who wants to suffer, please raise your hand! Sorry to be sarcastic, but do we really have to debate this?

yes, and its subjectiveness means one man's happiness is anothers suffering — Augustusea

Suffering is made of thought. Literally made of thought. That's what I'm referring to. So to the degree one is not thinking, suffering vanishes. And that absence of suffering does not cause suffering in another.

there is no happiness without suffering

There is truth in what you say here. There is however a third option which is neither happiness or suffering. Let's call it peace, just to apply a convenient label.

Happiness is, say, when we want something and we get it. Suffering is when we want something and don't get it. Peace is when we don't want.

Both happiness and suffering are made of thought. Thought will inevitably generate the dance between the two. And we have to think to survive, so some degree of suffering is inevitable. We agree on this.
So as human beings we can't escape suffering completely.

But we CAN manage the level of suffering.

why do things need to maximize good

Please answer as plainly as you can here.

Do you want to suffer? Yes? Or No?

If yes, then that is your right and none of anybody else's business.

If no, then a rational conversation would focus on maximizing the good.

Well, if we actually want to suffer, then I suppose it isn't. Let's take a poll. Everybody who wants to suffer, please raise your hand! Sorry to be sarcastic, but do we really have to debate this? — Hippyhead

argumentum ad populum in this case, I wouldn't follow

Suffering is made of thought. Literally made of thought. That's what I'm referring to. So to the degree one is not thinking, suffering vanishes. And that absence of suffering does not cause suffering in another. — Hippyhead

you cannot just stop thinking about depression? or not think about your dad beating you right there and then, this imaginary idealism is just that, trying to live in an imaginary world for an abstract cause of maximizing good.

There is truth in what you say here. There is however a third option which is neither happiness or suffering. Let's call it peace, just to apply a convenient label. — Hippyhead

Death basically is the only state with neither

Happiness is, say, when we want something and we get it. Suffering is when we want something and don't get it. Peace is when we don't want. — Hippyhead

a man can never not want, unless that man no longer is

Both happiness and suffering are made of thought. Thought will inevitably generate the dance between the two. And we have to think to survive, so some degree of suffering is inevitable. We agree on this.
So as human beings we can't escape suffering completely.

But we CAN manage the level of suffering. — Hippyhead

you can only trick yourself and cover the suffering with a mask, doesn't mean the suffering won't be there.

Do you want to suffer? Yes? Or No?

If yes, then that is your right and none of anybody else's business.

If no, then a rational conversation would focus on maximizing the good. — Hippyhead

A False dichotomy, neither, why do I need to want any of them,
and why is suffering bad? just because we regard it as so?

you cannot just stop thinking about depression — Augustusea

a man can never not want, unless that man no longer is

A person who feels this way might ask themselves, how much effort have they invested in seeing if that's true? If none, then that explains that.

doesn't mean the suffering won't be there.

Suffering is made of thought. Five words, which contain a path forward if you want it.

A person who feels this way might ask themselves, how much effort have they invested in seeing if that's true? If none, then that explains that. — Hippyhead

Determinism is clear, a man cannot want what he wants.

Suffering is made of thought. Five words, which contain a path forward if you want it. — Hippyhead

suffering is not temporary to surpass, it is permanent, it is infact life itself, meaning you ultimately are just suffering with breaks,
you might feel happy now, tomorrow you will probably feel worse, there will always be that bad day, always, there is no escaping that

suffering is not temporary to surpass, it is permanent, it is infact life itself, meaning you ultimately are just suffering with breaks,
you might feel happy now, tomorrow you will probably feel worse, there will always be that bad day, always, there is no escaping that — Augustusea

Ok then, so go with that. Your choice. I respect your right to your choice.

I do not have a choice, neither do you is the point, its the inevitability of our condition

I do not have a choice, neither do you is the point, its the inevitability of our condition — Augustusea

You have the right to believe that if that's what works for you. I'm not an evangelist. I'm not going to try to shove an alternative down your throat. Should you express a wish to discuss an alternative I'm willing, but I will respect your choice until then.

You have the right to believe that if that's what works for you. I'm not an evangelist. I'm not going to try to shove an alternative down your throat. Should you express a wish to discuss an alternative I'm willing, but I will respect your choice until then. — Hippyhead

ITS NOT A CHOICE, no one has choice, determinism prevails, but alright, take care

Anyway, let us continue. What are the arguments given from the former debater and what are yours? Again seperate the art from the artist. Let's hear it. Eager to continue. Be advised though, I may be even more opposed to your view than the creator of this thread! But I'll still debate with you unless you walk out also.

@Augustusea No one has a choice?! Many people live without this dogmatic view of suffering and prosper.
How does your determinism explain that?

ITS NOT A CHOICE, no one has choice, determinism prevails, but alright, take care — Augustusea

I'm hungry right now, and have the choice to go eat.

Later I'll be tired, and will have the choice to take a nap.

If I start suffering in my mind, I have the choice to do something about that too.

We have the choice to let go of the sweeping grand philosophical claims, and get practical and real. That is, rational. And we have the choice not to do that too.

Be advised though, I may be even more opposed to your view than the creator of this thread! — Outlander

Ok, no problem, proceed to oppose. I'm not walking away, just allowing folks to have their views, don't want to beat it to death etc.

But the choice to not make a choice is never available. Again, we are always ameliorating after the fact. Somehow it is never questioned by some why we need to put more people into the game in the first place.

Apologies, I don't understand anything you're saying here. If you wish to clarify, still listening.

You mentioned choices to not suffer, but the choice never to be put in the game of making choices to not suffer is never on the table. That is often the line of thinking a philosophical pessemist is coming from. And of course there are often things that are not choices but often affects ones capacity for choice...mental illness disease, phyical illness, circumstances, etc. But besides all this, the suffering discussed by philosophical pessimism is often about the basic dissatisfaction we find that strives but without end. The circular absurdity of surviving, seek comfortable circumstances, and seek entertainment stemming from a profound baseline boredom of the never satisfied human animal that cant just be, but must continually need and want except for small brief reposes.

You mentioned choices to not suffer, but the choice never to be put in the game of making choices to not suffer is never on the table. — schopenhauer1

Well ok, that's true. So what?

We also have no choice about needing food, needing water, needing sleep etc. We have no choice about the life long requirement to manage all these things.

Where's the news in your philosophy? What are you trying to tell us that we don't already know???

I think youre hitting many of the things I'm getting at. No one had a choice for this surivival, comfort, entertainment game, nor many contingent circumstances they are affected by. And it's a lifelong requirement to deal with these things. It was best never to have been. All the pessemist has now is communities of consolation with likeminded people, ones to share gripes and commiserate and find catharsis in shared griping. That and advocacy for not bringing yet more suffering into the world by antinatalism, not having more people that will do the suffering game and must deal with.

No one had a choice for this surivival, comfort, entertainment game, nor many contingent circumstances they are affected by. — schopenhauer1

I agree. Again, so what? This is very well known information. Nobody chose to be born, we all know that already.

It was best never to have been.

Ok, sure. Again, so what?

All the pessemist has now is communities of consolation with likeminded people, ones to share gripes and commiserate and find catharsis in shared griping. — schopenhauer1

As a personal choice, ok, to each their own. I'm objecting only to this CHOICE being elevated to some kind of sweeping description of the human condition. You know, there are things we can do other than gripe, should we so choose. Evidence: Not everyone is a pessimist, right?

My only real complaint is any notion that the philosophy you describe is rational. If you are willing to agree it's emotional and not rational, then I withdraw any complaint and agree to an "to each their own" perspective.

If you wish to argue that what you're describing is rational, you have a long way to go yet, imho.

If you wish to argue that what you're describing is rational, you have a long way to go yet, imho. — Hippyhead

You are using rational as a vague signal that means nothing. Its a weasel word that stands for "what you believe to be right and true".

Certainly, if one thinks life is suffering, and it is "rational" to not bring new suffering into the world for a whole other life, one ought not to do this. If one believes its rational to not force others into the life-deal-with game, then one ought not do this. For ethics, its all about appealing to peoples shared sensibilities. Otherwise, there is no impetus. Of course we would have to agree on the premises, like not starting unnecessary suffering on other peoples behalf.

You are using rational as a vague signal that means nothing. Its a weasel word that stands for "what you believe to be right and true". — schopenhauer1

If one is physically hungry, it's more rational to go to the kitchen and make some food than it is to bemoan the chronic need to eat which nobody chose, and nobody can do anything about.

Seriously. Do the experiment. The next time you are physically hungry, don't eat anything, just write a book about how sad it is that we have to eat every day of our lives. Do that again the next day. And the next. And the next. And then come back to the thread and tell us which choice you believe to be the most rational. Eating? Or complaining?

This is what you guys are doing in regards to suffering. Not eating, just complaining. You have every right to it, but there's nothing profound or rational about it. Nor is it very kind to do so in a thread started by someone considering suicide.

It seems you've utterly failed to see the difference between "life is suffering" and "life contains suffering".

If you are sincerely interested in suicide you might benefit from Durkheim's analysis of the social causes of suicide (anomie). I just read Talcott Parson's take on Durkheim's "Suicide" this morning, it was also excellent.

@Hippyhead :up:

Thanks for the applause @Asif. Now I'll never be able to stop typing, and I can blame it all on you. :-)

Ok, time for me to back out of challenge mode and present a thesis which others can challenge.

Briefly, my argument is that the mind is just another mechanical function of the body which requires management. In no case is there a perfect permanent solution. In all cases ongoing management is required throughout our lives.

Looking at psychological suffering as a mechanical problem opens the door to mechanical solutions. Mechanical solutions are good because they are readily accessible to everyone, no fancy philosophy required. As just one example, millions of people successfully manage their depression with prescription drugs, a purely mechanical remedy. Other people choose exercise, meditation, yoga, swimming, fishing etc.

My argument is that it's not rational to declare "life equals suffering" until all these constructive remedies have been explored.

My argument is that it's not rational to declare "life equals suffering" until all these constructive remedies have been explored. — Hippyhead

Life is a game. Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose. Life is full of pain, joy, happiness and despair.

Suffering only occurs when a person opts out of playing the game.

No one has a choice?! Many people live without this dogmatic view of suffering and prosper. — Asif

Of course, because they weren't determined for so, it isn't their choice, they don't have a choice, i don't, you don't, no one does, this is just where we were determined by the past and our biology and limitations of existence to be.

I'm hungry right now, and have the choice to go eat.

Later I'll be tired, and will have the choice to take a nap.

If I start suffering in my mind, I have the choice to do something about that too.

We have the choice to let go of the sweeping grand philosophical claims, and get practical and real. That is, rational. And we have the choice not to do that too. — Hippyhead

no you dont have the choice to eat, in order to do something you must want to do it or you are forced to do it,
if you want to eat you will eat, can you not want to eat? no you cannot,
you don't have a choice in anything, its determinism 101

@Augustusea So your saying some folks are determined to be optimists and some pessimists?
Maybe its personal determination that settles reality.
Have you pondered that?

So your saying some folks are determined to be optimists and some pessimists? — Asif

Yes.

Maybe its personal determination that settles reality. — Asif

There is no personal determination, you never had any ability to determine your future.

@Augustusea We are now descending into bizarro world! So who decided for you to post this reply if not you? And if you changed your mind you could have replied
later or even not replied. Your not making any sense at all.
Are not some events possibilities and contingent?