If by telos you mean purpose, I'd have to know what more you mean. — schopenhauer1

Almost; I mean a defining purpose. Something foundational. The hope that turns out to be nothing, which gives way to a false hope, needs to give way to an unexpected hope. Otherwise, suicide is the logical solution. I hate to admit this, but I'm with Camus, but only provisionally. A purpose has to mean something that connects to the experience of life, in all it's fullness, suffering, and nihilism.

As you and others have pointed out, even Sisyphus smiling at his own futility is hope. It is hope in the living out of the futility. Hope of the hopeless futility. — schopenhauer1

But that's not what I intended to point out. I'm saying that, if you find comfort in recognizing the hopelessness of the false hopes mankind sets for itself, you've found the deeper ground for hope itself. That ground is deeper than the over-cited ground of Camus's fake Sisyphus. You descry the failure of hope out of your own hope. Hope only means something to you out of your own sense of hope.

So no, "hope of the hopeless futility" is not hope; just listen to yourself, man. "Hope of the hopeless futility"?

So no, "hope of the hopeless futility" is not hope; just listen to yourself, man. "Hope of the hopeless futility?" — Noble Dust

True. This is in fact the insatiable will, Schopenhauer describes. There is an aesthetic beauty in understanding this. I've always claimed that there is a sort of aesthetic pessimism, when one keeps in the forefront the instrumental nature of things. Schop would say to then become an ascetic and turn away from the will- negating it. One might say that is its own form of hope (the escape from the hope-cycle). I think greater awareness of it through dialogue like this has a form of consolation involved. There is something said about coming to the same understanding of life as another person and not deluding it down because the insight does not fit with the very hope-cycle it wish's to explain. So yes, it is comforting, in a way it is. I never refuted that, and even said that was one thing pessimism can offer, a sobering but at least somewhat comforting idea that can be shared with those who are aware of the aesthetic vision it provides.

You seem to live in this lyric, "All the leaves are brown, and the sky is gray". I'm pretty sure you will reject whatever interpretation is offered, like with Marx. "Just more bullshit."

Communism in the Soviet Union turned out very badly, but there is still something very worthwhile in his view of religion. People need an opiate -- not Fentanyl, but an anodyne, if they are going to live in this wretched world, "this vale of tears". The hope, though, is not to push more dope, but to do something about the wretched world.

The thing with feathers is not a supernatural beast. Perhaps, it is the hope that springs eternal in the heart, that keeps us going.

Despair, depression, gloom, futility, darkness... all dull our capacity to feel hope. Some of this we can not help, and some of it we can.

That rhetoric doesn't deflate me. I know that game backwards and forwards. I've played it. I've been the "dark truth" guy for decades. I note that you neglect the essence of my critique, which was to instrumentalize your instrumentalism. From over here, you're clinging to your view every bit as dogmatically as I cling to my notion of myself as fundamentally glad to be alive. I decided to give "trying" a try, improved my circumstances, got a good "intellectual" job, blah blah blah. So life is better.

Your view is so stubbornly hopeless that it's almost a refutation of itself. You don't seem to be spending much time in the hope part of the cycle. Is hope even the right word? Concerned, engaged, fascinated. You write as if the process itself was meaningless or devoid of pleasure. Yet it's a cliche among artists that the act of creation is the true thrill. It's even an Aerosmith lyric that "life's a journey, not a destination." So a happy rock song (which I don't like, since I'm a music snob) encapsulates your view, demonstrating, arguably, that your value-interpretation is an add-on.

The hope, though, is not to push more dope, but to do something about the wretched world. — Bitter Crank

But then, this just belies the instrumental nature of existence. If we cut the bullshit out of most ethical systems- it is based on helping others who are in need (materially, emotionally, mentally, etc.) without impinging on other's rights (as much as possible) in the process. But what is this then for? What if we are all at a state where we do not need to be helped or help others? Hope of something better provides the impetus. But really we are doing to do to do, entertaining to entertain, etc. Survival in a historocultural setting on one hand (navigate those institutions of culture to survive), maintain comfort levels, and we must be entertained. But we do not like to see the barebones churning of this striving but for nothing. We need hope so that we can move through it and narrow the focus.

I'm a bit annoyed that you chose the most emotional and least philosophical point I made for your response; but in the spirit of free speech I'll go with it.

There is an aesthetic beauty in understanding this. — schopenhauer1

You need to define beauty as something inherently hopeless, then. Or inherently futile, or whatever. And not on Shopee's terms; on your own.

One might say that is its own form of hope (the escape from the hope-cycle). I think greater a — schopenhauer1

Again, you need to either re-define hope, or re-phrase. Schopee likes paradoxes, but they only work when intuition validates them.

I think greater awareness of it through dialogue like this has a form of consolation involved. — schopenhauer1

It may for you, but that's a form of escapism.

There is something said about coming to the same understanding of life as another person and not deluding it down because the insight does not fit with the very hope-cycle it wish's to explain. — schopenhauer1

So, not deluding down someone else's hope-cycle?

I never refuted that, and even said thought that was one thing pessimism can offer, a sobering but at least somewhat comforting idea that can be shared with those who are aware of the aesthetic vision it provides. — schopenhauer1

My problem here is that you're a soft-core pessimist. You can't have comfort and pessimism at the same time.

But really we are doing to do to do, entertaining to entertain, etc. — schopenhauer1

If I may put this in more vulgar terms, we are fucking to fuck, as well. We are eating to eat. We are sleeping to sleep. Entertaining, by the way, is fun when it's done well. Who doesn't like making others laugh or dazzling them? We like these things. We want to repeat them. Those who don't fear hellfire (or death as eternal sleep) fear death as the loss of this opportunity to repeat the same old pleasures. They also fear the loss of the personal growth interrupted by death. Maybe this just means becoming a better philosopher, writing that great book one day. You can tell them that they'll just want something else, after, and they'll say: great. Let's repeat the game of hide and seek. Because they are in the habit of successfully satisfying their desires. So desire is an opportunity for pleasure, which is distinctly a positive, and not just the cessation of a pain.

It is hope that is the opiate of the masses. — schopenhauer1

Where does 'meaning' fit into this. Hope seems like that dopamine release from the presynaptic channel to the postsynapses, while meaning is the response one gets from that 'hope'. Or is it the other way around?

Hope without meaning seems linked to such a degree that talking about one without the other what the elephant in the room is like to not be spoken of.

You need to define beauty as something inherently hopeless, then. Or inherently futile, or whatever. And not on Shopee's terms; on your own. — Noble Dust

Well, there is the aesthetic of seeing the "what actually is going on here", which can be said to be the instrumentality of things. I don't mean aesthetic as beauty per se, just a kind of understanding that takes place based on envisioning the structure that is going on.

It may for you, but that's a form of escapism. — Noble Dust

Indeed it is. But there's not much more bottom you can go other than trying to manically make into something to embrace pace Nietzsche.

So, not deluding down someone else's hope-cycle? — Noble Dust

Eh, I mean there's only so "meta" you can get. Once you see the hope-cycle, it doesn't go further back. You either find comfort in it, or you don't and you move on to some hopeful this or that. But that would just be reiterating the point :D.

My problem here is that you're a soft-core pessimist. You can't have comfort and pessimism at the same time. — Noble Dust

It is just part of the ethical aspect I guess. Pessimism can provide consolation. We are all instrumental and we can recognize it, discuss it, understand it. I guess there's not much more than that to do with it. The whole point is, we usually have to move away from languishing in it, as there is nowhere else to go except to hope for some other things. What I don't think will happen is that we abandon and still play the game. If we are playing the game, there is probably some hope there. Perhaps there is something to be said about the self-awareness of this though.

If I may put this in more vulgar terms, we are fucking to fuck, as well. We are eating to eat. We are sleeping to sleep. Entertaining, by the way, is fun when it's done well. Who doesn't like making others laugh or dazzling them? We like these things. We want to repeat them. Those who don't fear hellfire (or death as eternal sleep) fear death as the loss of this opportunity to repeat the same old pleasures. They also fear the loss of the personal growth interrupted by death. Maybe this just means becoming a better philosopher, writing that great book one day. — t0m

Again, this just reiterates the point. I don't disagree this is what we do. You can't see the light for too long, as you implied, it will just burn. I think the whole personal growth thing is just part of the need for need of novelty. The constant satiation needs to be satisfied indeed.

Where does 'meaning' fit into this. Hope seems like that dopamine release from the presynaptic channel to the postsynapses, while meaning is the response one gets from that 'hope'. Or is it the other way around?

Hope without meaning seems linked to such a degree that talking about one without the other what the elephant in the room is like to not be spoken of. — Posty McPostface

The meaning is in the hope. Hope is long-lasting as it never stops. Achieving a goal is fleeting as it simply leads to more goals, and more. We are never satisfied, always deprived.

Well, there is the aesthetic of seeing the "what actually is going on here", which can be said to be the instrumentality of things. I don't mean aesthetic as beauty per se, just a kind of understanding that takes place based on envisioning the structure that is going on. — schopenhauer1

I'm with you, but it sounds like we disagree about the nature of that instrumentality.

But there's not much more bottom you can go other than trying to manically make into something to embrace pace Nietzsche. — schopenhauer1

There seems to be a typo in there; want to re-phrase?

Once you see the hope-cycle, it doesn't go further back. You either find comfort in it, or you don't and you move on to some hopeful this or that. — schopenhauer1

"Hopeful this or that" being more fake hope, or what? Again, where does suicide play in here?

It is just part of the ethical aspect I guess. — schopenhauer1

The ethical aspect of what?

Pessimism can provide consolation. — schopenhauer1

How? (You're following paragraph doesn't give me much.)

Yeah, even worse than Schopenhauer's negation of Will is Nietzsche's eternal recurrence. That truly is a horror. One is quiescence, the other is manic life sentence. The eternal vigilance of being. — schopenhauer1

Eternal recurrence is a good mention. At this point, I'd say yes. That would mean going through hell again, but it would also mean going through intensities of pleasure in discovery that are hard to match these days. Falling in love for the first time again, for instance. Jesus, what drug compares to that? But it was Hell, too, before I came to "self-possession" and "transcendence." But knowing that I would find myself again would make being thrown back in the maze acceptable.

The point again, is hope gives us the narrow focus we need to not constantly bear the world in its full instrumental nature. It provides the ship its ballast. Status may be something that we do in a society, but that is more an epiphenomenon of being a social creature and is a secondary effect, and not an underlying factor in why we continue at a fundamental level. Status is not only getting caught up in goals, but taking them seriously. — schopenhauer1

I don't understand why the "full instrumental nature" of the world would be unpleasant. I just can't see the Hell in it.

For me status especially includes how we see ourselves. When we're young, this is indeed especially social. We need parents and peers to validate us. But as we attain independence and authenticity, we judge ourselves by our own standards. This explains the sociopath as well as the revolutionary philosopher and artist. Men even die for "honor," not so much because of what others think of them, necessarily, but for fear of how they would think of themselves after cowardly submission.

So status involves the image of virtue that as functional is exactly what we take most seriously. Both of us are philosophical types, so it's no surprise that we verbalize these images of virtue, more or less explicitly. You are the guy who publicly takes your position, and I have decided to publicly take mine. We are performing and implying "what is [truly] noble."

Again, this just reiterates the point. I don't disagree this is what we do. You can't see the light for too long, as you implied, it will just burn. I think the whole personal growth thing is just part of the need for need of novelty. The constant satiation needs to be satisfied indeed. — schopenhauer1

I don't think the light burns. Or it doesn't burn everyone. Some will be offended by a vision of futility and repetition. I'll grant you that. But others make a career of poeticizing it (Sarte, Schopenhauer, etc.) And there's a market for it, so it doesn't burn everyone. For some it's just more spice.

Yes the need for novelty is there. But is need shameful in itself? Is that the problem? The indignity of being an incarnate, needy being? Feuerbach called us "porous" gods. We have holes to fill and empty, fill and empty. This is absurd from one perspective and yet often enjoyable. I do think philosophers tend to want to be godlike statues, immobile and impermeable in the bliss of their wisdom.

But then another goal takes its place. And another. It is not whether you achieve the goal that I'm getting at, but the insatiableness of goals, the neverending quality, and their instrumental nature. Also, its ability to narrow our focus so we don't see the absurd instrumental nature of the repetition. It's an opiate indeed. — schopenhauer1

What is the problem here? Circularity, not the logical kind, is part of nature...the planets revolve around the sun, biochemistry is full of chemical cycles. In fact I think cycles, of any kind, are an ineluctable part of our reality. Why point a finger at a very fundamental characteristic of nature itself and rue over it? I think this type of thinking, pitting unrealistic expectations against ''brute facts'' of nature, can serve only as a well of pain and suffering. What we should do is seek the truth and adapt to it, which you're not doing(?)

I don't know which is more absurd, life itself or people who think its absurd because it doesn't match their expectations?

There seems to be a typo in there; want to re-phrase? — Noble Dust

It is kind of like t0m's philosophy if you look at his responses. He is trying to out Schopenhauer Schopenhauer by embracing the instrumental nature of things. Pain is good because it is challenging, so the line of thinking goes. If you were to Eternally Return to life over and over and over, you would say a resounding YES. These themes of embracing pain as it makes you better, and the Eternal Recurrence are Nietzsche's ideas essentially. He is trying to meta the meta, if you will. As I responded to t0m, this philosophy seems abhorrent to me. That conception would mean we would live an Ever Vigilant Existence where we never get any (metaphysical) rest. Also, to say that the challenges of life makes one better, seems a coping mechanism. Why do people need to be born to face challenges in the first place? Again, the instrumental nature of things makes this line of thinking suspect. It is post facto rationalizing of a situation that is already set from circumstances of birth. It is the only thing to say in the face of this, even it is just a thing to say, as there is no alternative except seeing it in its truly negative light. So Nietzscheans go on trying toincorporate challenges, set-backs, and suffering into the hope-cycle. Nietzsche was the ultimate in doing this, thus his wide appeal. A philosophy for the manically life-affirming- like someone who had a lot of cocaine and wanders the mountainous Swiss countryside for a half day and then goes back to the realities that are life and lives out what is really going on- the instrumentality of doing to do to do- surviving, discomfort, boredom, hope-cycle repeat.

"Hopeful this or that" being more fake hope, or what? Again, where does suicide play in here? — Noble Dust

That is not going to be an option for most people. I also want to be delicate about this issue because I don't know your state of mind. I'd say there is some comfort in understanding the aesthetics in what is going on. t0m does have a point in terms that there is a dark sense of consolation in the knowledge of the instrumentality. The hard part is maintaining the vision without backing down, without letting the burn force you into a Nietzchean mania, or trying to ignore it and anchor yourself firmly in the goals.

What is the problem here? Circularity, not the logical kind, is part of nature...the planets revolve around the sun, biochemistry is full of chemical cycles. In fact I think cycles, of any kind, are an ineluctable part of our reality. Why point a finger at a very fundamental characteristic of nature itself and rue over it? I think this type of thinking, pitting unrealistic expectations against ''brute facts'' of nature, can serve only as a well of pain and suffering. What we should do is seek the truth and adapt to it, which you're not doing(?)

I don't know which is more absurd, life itself or people who think its absurd because it doesn't match their expectations? — TheMadFool

We are part of nature, but the only ones who can see what is going on as well, so it is not as cut as dry. We live out the cycle, yet see that it is a cycle. And we can also see it is one of deprivation- the need for more need, and the hope that carries us along to the next need. It is viciously repetitious, even in its novelty (the repetition of trying novelty even). But I guess the main response here is that, unlike the rest of nature (and I agree we are fully a part of nature; a truism) is that we can self-reflect on it and see the instrumentality. We are not geese who just fly South every winter and scavenge for morsels of worms without reflecting on it. We can see our situation while we live it out- the only animal to do so on Earth.

Hope belongs to God. One hopes for God, for salvation. To place one's hope where moth and rust doth corrupt is foolish - indeed, it is as stupid as you describe it to be.

But I place my hope in God. That means I place my hope in something that I cannot imagine, nor expect in this life. Indeed, my hope is beyond this life, and cannot be attained within it. It is the hope for the beyond - the hope the valiant warrior experiences as he lays completely exhausted on the field of battle - whether victorious or defeated, for things don't look much different then.

But you're missing that enjoying the cycle means the situation doesn't "ask for" negation. For 10 years now I've been a "nihilist" in recognizing nothing absolute in the world. Indeed, this negation of the world is (for me) the absolute itself. By identifying with disidentification itself, man becomes transcendence incarnate.So by no means am I afraid of understanding you here. I'm not squeamish about the futility of human existence. It's part of my persona, living with this knowledge and the distance from mortal things it provides those who can accept their mortality.

I agree with what you imply, that we "slap on terms" in order to cope with reality. But I radicalize this theory. Even the grim "truth" of futility can function as an erotic object or power play. Pessimism is sexy.

Occasionally I feel world-weary. Occasionally (especially if I get sick), I get disgusted with life. So these modes appear, and it's easy to abstractly assent to my death in such modes. But for the most part the game is too absorbing. I have projects to bring to fruition. We can call the projects an illusion or the sense of futility an illusion. We'd just be privileging one mode over the other. Both modes are real. To project a dominant abstraction is arguably to reduce the real for a moment's purpose. — t0m

Libidus Dominandi

As someone also trapped in paralyzing depression, my question still stands. — Noble Dust

We are all trapped in depression for one reason or another - some are just less aware of their depression. There are also healthy people, but they are not here. We probably never met a healthy person, because Western society has become very corrupt. We look around, and there are only blind men leading the blind. It is our historical era.

Gotta have hope. Indeed. Upgrade the opium. — schopenhauer1

His vision is nothing but the will to power, as I mentioned before. He has this in common with Hegel and Kojeve, both of whom did not care for truth, but for power. Man had to become God, man had to dominate, to become the transcendent.

A purpose has to mean something that connects to the experience of life, in all it's fullness, suffering, and nihilism. — Noble Dust

It is like looking at a red vase, and suddenly seeing it yellow. This is the radical cognitive change the whole Western world is looking for, scrambling for, and unable to find it. It is not a different experience, but a different way of experiencing.

The hope, though, is not to push more dope, but to do something about the wretched world. — Bitter Crank

To what end? Suppose we fix the world, and it is now a heaven. What will we do then? Utopia is meaningless - cannot exist in this world, only in another world - in heaven - can we hope for such a thing.

I decided [dogmatically] to give "trying" a try, improved my circumstances, got a good "intellectual" job, blah blah blah. So life is better. — t0m

Which just proves that your initial 'rational' theory about life was wrong.

Those who don't fear hellfire (or death as eternal sleep) fear death as the loss of this opportunity to repeat the same old pleasures. — t0m

And what greater, worse and less merciless fear is there than the fear that you cannot repeat the same old pleasures ad infinitum? Indeed, Nietzsche's great eternal recurrence must have been nothing but the desire of a miser - just more life ad infinitum - the same old small pleasure, but don't take them away from me.

Falling in love for the first time again, for instance. — t0m

Memory, the past, time - they are all a bondage. True freedom is the letting go of memory, of the past, of all of it, and looking at things afresh.

Men even die for "honor," not so much because of what others think of them, necessarily, but for fear of how they would think of themselves after cowardly submission. — t0m

True. Socrates.

That conception would mean we would live an Ever Vigilant Existence where we never get any (metaphysical) rest — schopenhauer1

It is not rest that people are searching for - it is that infinite zest of the child, the sense of possibility, the breaking out from one's conditioning, one's past, one's prison - seeing the world aright.

For example. I am world-weary, but it's not because I want some metaphysical rest. No - it's because things are too hard, things are too impossible given my situation, things appear fixed and immobile. So I have to do things by pushing myself, by forcing myself. I guess that this is so for every young person. If one looks in one's past, one has achieved so much, it seems impossible to ever have been achieved. It really does. If I think about doing all that I have done in the past again - I will say it is impossible. This is world-weariness - the feeling of impossibility, of being stuck. Just imagining for a second - the horror of so many years spent in school - so much work, and one is still just at the bottom of the mountain. The horror of having to spend again so much time, and so little progress. Being at the bottom of the mountain and looking up is depressing - it makes one feel that it is impossible to climb, and so one never climbs. And inversely - once at the top, the entire climb looks to have been impossible, unimaginable - a miracle!

André Agassi was a great tennis player. But he hated it. Why? Because it takes so much work, and yet, so little progress compared to the work. So slow - to toil for so long, only for a few moments of greatness. And one never wanted to toil in the first place - rather one must be forced, otherwise it is impossible to be great. Whether one forces oneself, or circumstances force one - great achievement is always forced and pushed. It takes so long - there is simply too much work to be done.

This is world-weariness - the feeling of impossibility, of being stuck. Just imagining for a second - the horror of so many years spent in school - so much work, and one is still just at the bottom of the mountain. The horror of having to spend again so much time, and so little progress. Being at the bottom of the mountain and looking up is depressing - it makes one feel that it is impossible to climb, and so one never climbs. And inversely - once at the top, the entire climb looks to have been impossible, unimaginable - a miracle! — Agustino

Reifying achievement through hard work. Just another example of yet another goal to hope for.

What is hope? "A feeling of expectation and desire for a certain thing to happen." To hope is irrational if what one expects to happen is impossible. But are all things impossible? If they are, then your observation follows trivially, which means your claim depends on demonstrating that everything one might hope for is impossible.

I'm not entirely convinced of that. Schopenhauer is invariably referenced in these discussions, but he would maintain that salvation is possible, and I agree with him. He may have been confused or mistaken about the mechanism and precise character of salvation, but that it is possible he demonstrates to my satisfaction. If salvation is possible, then it is rational to hope for. Thus, a hopeless world is not one your namesake and inspiration proposes, at the very least. If you have moved beyond him in this regard, it is apparently in the direction of nihilism.

I agree with this.

I'm not entirely convinced of that. Schopenhauer is invariably referenced in these discussions, but he would maintain that salvation is possible, and I agree with him. He may have been confused or mistaken about the mechanism and precise character of salvation, but that it is possible he demonstrates to my satisfaction. If salvation is possible, then it is rational to hope for. Thus, a hopeless world is not one your namesake and inspiration proposes, at the very least. If you have moved beyond him in this regard, it is apparently in the direction of nihilism. — Thorongil

I sympathize with his idea that we must turn away from our own will and diminish its hold. However, I have always maintained skepticism of its possibility. By skepticism, I mean pretty 0% chance. If we are alive, we are willing. At best, it is similar to a therapeutic technique.

The point was the expectation is a driving force that prevents despair, even from seeing the very human condition of instrumentality.

No one can really avoid it. The strain of the instrumental nature of existence would be too much without...something. It could be the weekend, the tribal ceremony, that hunt, that X entertainment, that relationship. You name it, you are hoping for something. No one is above it. Sagely words don't negate its affect on the average (read all) humans living. — schopenhauer1

I know from personal experience that you are incorrect. Giving up hope is not that difficult for me, although I'm far from perfect. Now, giving up fear, for me that's the hard part.

I know from personal experience that you are incorrect. Giving up hope is not that difficult for me, although I'm far from perfect. Now, giving up fear, for me that's the hard part — T Clark

Do you hope to do that? :P

I think this was the wisest post in this whole thread >:O

Do you hope to do that? — schopenhauer1

I'm afraid that I won't be able to.

If I had one wish, it would be to be fearless. Do I hope to be fearless? Here's what I've learned in 65 years - You can have anything you want. All you have to do is stop wanting it.

I think this was the wisest post in this whole thread — Agustino

Lao Tzu was a smart guy.

But then another goal takes its place. And another. It is not whether you achieve the goal that I'm getting at, but the insatiableness of goals, the neverending quality, and their instrumental nature. Also, its ability to narrow our focus so we don't see the absurd instrumental nature of the repetition. It's an opiate indeed. — schopenhauer1

This really is the heart of Alan Watts' view of the world. I think it was in "The Wisdom of Insecurity." It was one of his first books before he became more and more hippy dippy. At that point in his life he was a lapsed Anglican who was homesick and trying to figure out how to mix what he loved about Christianity with what he was learning about eastern religions and philosophies.

Despair, depression, gloom, futility, darkness... all dull our capacity to feel hope. Some of this we can not help, and some of it we can. — Bitter Crank

My God, this is like four Eeyores at a cocktail party.

We are all trapped in depression for one reason or another - some are just less aware of their depression. There are also healthy people, but they are not here. We probably never met a healthy person, because Western society has become very corrupt. We look around, and there are only blind men leading the blind. It is our historical era. — Agustino

You guys are all claiming to speak for humanity when you're really only speaking from your own self-indulgent despair. No, we are all not trapped in depression. Some people feel that they are in a beautiful universe that we were created to live in. Some of us feel deeply at home.

I have been depressed in my life. I know what it feels like. I am very aware. I know when I am and when I'm not, and I'm not.

"We probably never met a healthy person." What the fuck does that mean? I want you guys all to send me your addresses so I can come over and kick you in the ass.