This is truth as an alien object. This truth is an asteroid in the dark of pre-human time. What can "faith" mean if religion is an obsession with this person-independent object? — t0m

Truth is of course person-independent, what's wrong with that? Man is not the measure of all things, that would be ridiculously anthropocentric, not to mention based on pure self-aggrandisement and selfishness. As harsh as it is, man is in this sense not the centre of the Universe.

How does this not reduce religion to metaphysical arrogance? He who sees the Thing in its Truth gets to call the shots, right? — t0m

No, it wouldn't follow that he who understands or knows the Truth thereby gets to call the shots. Calling the shots is a practical and political affair, which has little correspondence with what is True, but rather with persuasion and influence. Truth cannot compel.

He who questions the objectivity of this object is a blasphemer, a revolutionary. For him the hemlock or the cross? — t0m

Paradoxically, it was Jesus and Socrates who believed in absolute truth, and those who killed them who didn't.

Philosophical pessimism is a consequence of depression/anhedonia, and not the other way around. People don't get depressed because the world is bad, the world is seen as bad because people are depressed. — antinatalautist

This sounds kind of like something you went through and are projecting it here. But, even if that is not the case, my answer is that instrumentality as an aeshthetic concept is there. Respond to it how you will. Sometimes the hope-cycle means you can avoid this understanding. Some people get glimpses of it when they are depressed, bored/restless, etc. To have a full blown understanding of the nature of this, and live with it, is hard, but it's not like thus you have to mope around. Even the pessimist swings from hope vine to hope vine. It just just they are more clearly articulating the big aesthetic picture.

People don't get depressed because the world is bad, the world is seen as bad because people are depressed. — antinatalautist

This may be the case for some, but in terms of philosophical pessimism, this gets the cart before the horse. If the world is seen as bad because people are depressed, we have to ask why people are depressed. Sometimes they have philosophical reasons that entail a depressive outlook, and pumping them with SSRIs and attempting to negotiate their return to the capitalistic death train doesn't address these reasons. It just ignores them.

return to the capitalistic death train — darthbarracuda

Disagree with the opinion, love the phrase.

This may be the case for some, but in terms of philosophical pessimism, this gets the cart before the horse. If the world is seen as bad because people are depressed, we have to ask why people are depressed. Sometimes they have philosophical reasons that entail a depressive outlook, and pumping them with SSRIs and attempting to negotiate their return to the capitalistic death train doesn't address these reasons. It just ignores them. — darthbarracuda

There is a definite dichotomy here. It usually falls somewhere like this:

Instrumentality vs. Net Positive Experiences or Subjective/objective Goods
Instrumentality vs. Some sort of Eastern Zen-like Way of Being
Instrumentality vs. Progress

Truth is of course person-independent, what's wrong with that? Man is not the measure of all things, that would be ridiculously anthropocentric, not to mention based on pure self-aggrandisement and selfishness. As harsh as it is, man is in this sense not the centre of the Universe. — Agustino

I agree that some truth is best described a 'person-independent.' The public world of physical objects is exactly the sort of thing that comes to mind. But philosophical and religious thinking tends to interpret this world of objects. Is there a person-independent truth about justice? Or about truth itself? Is there a person-independent truth about virtue? Do justice, truth, and virtue exist in a lifeless universe?

How do you know that man is not the measure of all things? Do you not 'measure' our situation yourself here? For me "anthropocentrism" looks inescapable. It's we humans who make it a virtue or a vice, who use it as a token in our dialogues.

I agree with Blake and Feuerbach that our conceptions of virtue and the transcendent must be founded on an image of the ideal human. A lovable, loving God only makes sense as a disembodied human, the "Human Form Divine." Or can we sincerely worship a being that makes no sense to us? Isn't this the idea in God being made visible by taking human form?

Along those lines, I suggest that man is still the center of the Universe. Of course this isn't true in the physical model, but that model is one more tool for human purposes. And even your appeal to it manifests, in my view, human centrality. You use it defend a spiritual/metaphysical view that you are invested in. And I respond to defend my own spiritual/metaphysical position. It's a token in a dialogue about virtue.

Along those lines, I suggest that man is still the center of the Universe. Of course this isn't true in the physical model, but that model is one more tool for human purposes. And even your appeal to it manifests, in my view, human centrality. You use it defend a spiritual/metaphysical view that you are invested in. And I respond to defend my own spiritual/metaphysical position. It's a token in a dialogue about virtue. — t0m

I think you and I have had this conversation before. As envisioned by Lao Tzu et. al., It is we humans who bring the universe into being out of non-being. In my view, that makes the universe half human.

I think you and I have had this conversation before. As envisioned by Lao Tzu et. al., It is we humans who bring the universe into being out of non-being. In my view, that makes the universe half human. — T Clark

I agree. Even the "non-human" is a human thought that exists for human purposes.

Is there a person-independent truth about justice? Or about truth itself? Is there a person-independent truth about virtue? Do justice, truth, and virtue exist in a lifeless universe? — t0m

Yes, in the sense that the nature of Justice does not depend on what X or Y think about it (only sophists would say otherwise). That's exactly what Plato, Jesus, Socrates, etc. argued for and proved. But obviously, there can be no sense of justice in a lifeless universe (if such a thing as a lifeless universe can even be conceived :s ) - but that's simply because there would be no people for justice to apply to.

How do you know that man is not the measure of all things? Do you not 'measure' our situation yourself here? — t0m

So if man does the measuring, how does it follow that man would be the measure of all things? It's entirely unrelated. I can do the measurement with reference to an external standard - in that case, I wouldn't be the measure of all things, even though I am the measurer.

It's we humans who make it a virtue or a vice, who use it as a token in our dialogues. — t0m

No, we don't, I'd say we find that some things are virtues and others vices. Even if everyone considers X to be a vice, for example, they could be wrong. This fact alone shows us that what people think doesn't determine what is a virtue or a vice, for if it did, then it would be inconceivable that they are wrong.

I agree with Blake and Feuerbach that our conceptions of virtue and the transcendent must be founded on an image of the ideal human. — t0m

So this image of the ideal human is just given? Or how is it established?

A lovable, loving God only makes sense as a disembodied human, the "Human Form Divine." Or can we sincerely worship a being that makes no sense to us? — t0m

There's a big gap from God being limited to the human form, and God making no sense to us. It's not a black and white issue.

Along those lines, I suggest that man is still the center of the Universe. — t0m

I think that's an absolutely wrong understanding of the situation. After Kant there were two continuations of the Kantian project. Schopenhauer and Hegel. I think that Hegel placed man back at the center of the Universe, while Schopenhauer placed the Will there, which is a meta-human principle.

You don't like opiates? — Roke

Good one.

We are all trapped in depression for one reason or another - some are just less aware of their depression. — Agustino

If someone said to you "my leg is broken! Help!" would you then say, "We all have broken legs for one reason or another - some are just less aware of their broken legs."

There are also healthy people, but they are not here. — Agustino

Where are they? :-| (you mean they don't post on this forum?)

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

Nah, I've met people who seem to have a good amount of mental health. But they're the sort who don't engage with the depth of the human condition. So, yes, those that "are not here".

All that said, how is all of that a response to my statement that I suffer from crippling depression? Given that that was the initial quote from me you quoted.

t 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. — Agustino

That metaphor is unconvincing; you'd need to try something else.

I was literally addressing an apparent typo in your statement that I quoted which was confusing, but I'll respond to your post since it's interesting. Btw, if you want to respond to the other (more interesting) things I posted, feel free.

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?

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. — schopenhauer1

What is metaphysical rest?

How does saying "the challenges of life make one better" equate to a coping mechanism? What is a coping mechanism?

Why do people need to be born to face challenges? They aren't. People are born. Challenges crop up. There's no epistemology as of yet, given those two circumstances.

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 — schopenhauer1

What?

That is not going to be an option for most people. — schopenhauer1

Why champion nihilism and then say this?

I also want to be delicate about this issue because I don't know your state of mind. — schopenhauer1

Thanks for your (non-nihilistic) concern; I'm able to discuss these things; I just post infrequently because of lack of interest, as well as some sort of ADD or something. As well as crippling depression.
:D

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. — schopenhauer1

So what's the point for you? The telos?

Where are they? :-| (you mean they don't post on this forum?) — Noble Dust

Asia.

Nah, I've met people who seem to have a good amount of mental health. — Noble Dust

Most of those are weak mentally too. They just never face up to the issues in question. Not fighting and running away isn't the same as being strong.

That metaphor is unconvincing; you'd need to try something else. — Noble Dust

Why?

If someone said to you "my leg is broken! Help!" would you then say, "We all have broken legs for one reason or another - some are just less aware of their broken legs." — Noble Dust

Except that broken legs are a physical condition, and depression is mental (some is physical too, but not in all cases).

Asia. — Agustino

*Checks Asia for healthy people*

Most of those are weak mentally too. They just never face up to the issues in question. Not fighting and running away isn't the same as being strong. — Agustino

Basically what I said in the part of that paragraph of mine that you didn't quote.

Why? — Agustino

Because it's unrealistic and phantastical.

Except that broken legs are a physical condition, and depression is mental — Agustino

Mental illness is of the brain.

What is metaphysical rest? — Noble Dust

Death. Non-existence.

How does saying "the challenges of life make one better" equate to a coping mechanism? What is a coping mechanism? — Noble Dust

A coping mechanism is a way that humans deal with negative emotions, negative experiences, negative situations. How does one turn the frown upside down? Try to make what is negative a positive. Thus, instead of simply saying negative is negative, people try to "spin" it as a positive. What do I mean by spin? Have you ever heard of a "spin doctor" in politics? Here is a definition: a person (such as a political aide) responsible for ensuring that others interpret an event from a particular point of view.

Why do people need to be born to face challenges? They aren't. People are born. Challenges crop up. There's no epistemology as of yet, given those two circumstances. — Noble Dust

No No. This is from the parent's point of view. If parents know life has challenges (assuming most do), then an odd outcome of them having children is knowingly setting someone up to face challenges.

What? — Noble Dust

Post-facto: After the fact reasoning- more emphasis on people "spinning" it to look a certain way, to themselves or others.. maybe we can talk our way out of it, like so many motivational calendars.

Why champion nihilism and then say this? — Noble Dust

I don't know. Maybe I'm not championing nihilism (or whatever interpretation of that loaded word you are using)? Suicide is not an option because most people have a strong impulse to live despite pain or negative view of life. It is instinctual to not want to harm your body and to be afraid of the unknown (death), even if intellectually as an exercise we can view death from "afar" as simply like what it was like before we were born (or non-existence, or dreamless sleep, etc. etc.).

So what's the point for you? The telos? — Noble Dust

I'll have to explain that later. Too much gathering of my thoughts for that right now.

Mental illness is of the brain. — Noble Dust

Yes, but it's not always something physically wrong with the brain. And even if there is, the brain has neuroplasticity, it can physically change itself with mental exertion in some circumstances.

But yes, some people do seem to just have chemical imbalances.

Because it's unrealistic and phantastical. — Noble Dust

It's not unrealistic at all. Snapping out of depression is like hitting a switch. I know, because I've experienced it. The same thing looks different after.

Death. Non-existence. — schopenhauer1

So you mean to say:

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 — schopenhauer1

death.

A coping mechanism is a way that humans deal with negative emotions, negative experiences, negative situations. — schopenhauer1

I know. I intuited that you meant something negative by saying "coping mechanism". But that's not always the case; sometimes experience presents us with unimaginable shock; PTSD, for instance, or sexual trauma as a minor. In these instances where the offense is incalculable, a coping mechanism isn't a balm to unwilling eyes; it's a balm to an uncomprehending mind. The balm, here, is categorically good.

No No. This is from the parent's point of view. — schopenhauer1

Since when??

(or whatever interpretation of that loaded word you are using)? Suicide is not an option becaus — schopenhauer1

I'm using it via my interpretation of what you're saying specifically in this thread.

uicide is not an option because most people have a strong impulse to live despite pain or negative view of life. — schopenhauer1

Why?

I'll have to explain that later. Too much gathering of my thoughts for that right now. — schopenhauer1

I'm eagerly waiting!

Yes, but it's not always something physically wrong with the brain. And even if there is, the brain has neuroplasticity, it can physically change itself with mental exertion in some circumstances. — Agustino

I agree, but I wanted to highlight that depression is not always traceable to one specific cause. My depression, after long, detailed analysis done by yours truly, does not avail itself to one simple cause. I was trying to highlight that point with my comments. That probably wasn't clear. That's a trait of depression, it seems; we try to highlight our own experience at the expense of the experience of others. See my harsh comment bellow...

It's not unrealistic at all. Snapping out of depression is like hitting a switch. I know, because I've experienced it. The same thing looks different after. — Agustino

I've never experienced that, so by your own logic, you're wrong.

I've never experienced that, so by your own logic, you're wrong. — Noble Dust

Okay, I don't care if I'm wrong. So be it.

I agree, but I wanted to highlight that depression is not always traceable to one specific cause. My depression, after long, detailed analysis done by yours truly, does not avail itself to one simple cause. I was trying to highlight that point with my comments. That probably wasn't clear. That's a trait of depression, it seems; we try to highlight our own experience at the expense of the experience of others. See my harsh comment bellow... — Noble Dust

Okay, I don't care if I'm wrong. So be it. — Agustino

I wasn't trying to prove you wrong, I was trying to highlight the subjectivity of depression.

What's the point of posting the Shkreli video? Especially since he says he doesn't have major depression?

I wasn't trying to prove you wrong, I was trying to highlight the subjectivity of depression.

What's the point of posting the Shkreli video? Especially since he says he doesn't have major depression? — Noble Dust

I recently listened to it, and I found it interesting. He's in many ways right that having someone who unconditionally believes in you is really good - if you don't have that someone, then you must believe in yourself, unconditionally.

He's in many ways right that having someone who unconditionally believes in you is really good — Agustino

It took that guy to make you realize that? (seriously). :s

if you don't have that someone, then you must believe in yourself, unconditionally. — Agustino

Will this be successful?

It took that guy to make you realize that? (seriously). :s — Noble Dust

Yeah, I never really thought about it, but it's true when I do think about it based on my experience.

Will this be successful? — Noble Dust

In my experience, it works.

Yeah, I never really thought about it, but it's true when I do think about it based on my experience. — Agustino

I didn't mean to be condescending there, but that theme of lacking someone who believes in you has been a major theme in my life, so I made the assumption it was obvious. Learning about that constantly...

In my experience, it works. — Agustino

In what ways?

I didn't mean to be condescending there, but that theme of lacking someone who believes in you has been a major theme in my life, so I made the assumption it was obvious. Learning about that constantly... — Noble Dust

I never really had someone who believes in me - that's how I ended up believing in myself in the first place. No one else would, and I needed it. It does help if you have a self-belief, like Schopenhauer did, in your own genius - that can pull you through many things.

In what ways? — Noble Dust

In that it keeps you going. It keeps you hoping for a great future even when your present isn't so great.

I never really had someone who believes in me - that's how I ended up believing in myself in the first place. No one else would, and I needed it. It does help if you have a self-belief, like Schopenhauer did, in your own genius - that can pull you through many things. — Agustino

Interesting; I had a really great percussion teacher, but other than that, not much. But I did develop a belief in my own musical genius. But it hasn't gotten me far. I don't much believe in that line of reasoning. But I do still believe in my own genius; I just don't much care if others think of me as such.

In that it keeps you going. It keeps you hoping for a great future even when your present isn't so great. — Agustino

This doesn't do much for me; it must just be a personality thing. We're not really discussing philosophy proper at this point.

But I do still believe in my own genius; I just don't much care if others think of me as such. — Noble Dust

Yeah of course. The point of self-belief is that it doesn't matter what others think.

Interesting; I had a really great percussion teacher, but other than that, not much. But I did develop a belief in my own musical genius. But it hasn't gotten me far. — Noble Dust

Not yet at least. It is necessary but not also sufficient. To get far you have to find a way that works. How can your music reach a wide enough audience? Who would recognise your music as great? How can you make people love it? A lot of this is marketing, and not really making music. Without the right marketing, even the greatest music will remain unknown.

Not yet at least. It is necessary but not also sufficient. To get far you have to find a way that works. How can your music reach a wide enough audience? Who would recognise your music as great? How can you make people love it? A lot of this is marketing, and not really making music. Without the right marketing, even the greatest music will remain unknown. — Agustino

I'm all too familiar with all of that. (Y) Perhaps a topic for another thread.

death. — Noble Dust

Nothing wrong with describing an interesting picture. It also had a reference to another thread I wrote: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/1800/ever-vigilant-existence/p1

I know. I intuited that you meant something negative by saying "coping mechanism". But that's not always the case; sometimes experience presents us with unimaginable shock; PTSD, for instance, or sexual trauma as a minor. In these instances where the offense is incalculable, a coping mechanism isn't a balm to unwilling eyes; it's a balm to an uncomprehending mind. The balm, here, is categorically good. — Noble Dust

I agree, for traumatic incidents, that is a positive. But let's not conflate what is an obvious difference. One is used in an everyday sense of estimating life itself, birth, and existential questions in general, the other is dealing with severe psychological suffering. So it would be very different parts of the spectrum, or perhaps just different ways of using that term.

Since when?? — Noble Dust

Either the parent knows its offspring will face challenges, is willfully ignorant, or ignores the fact and underestimates the challenges (and the many unknowns as to quantity and quality). Any of those are not great.

I'm using it via my interpretation of what you're saying specifically in this thread. — Noble Dust

I don't usually go by the term nihilism, so it is not by my thread. I associate my positions more with Philosophical Pessimism (e.g. Schopenhauer, Zapffe, Cioran, etc. etc.).

Why? — Noble Dust

I already explained it. This was an adequate answer: It is instinctual to not want to harm your body and to be afraid of the unknown (death), even if intellectually as an exercise we can view death from "afar" as simply like what it was like before we were born (or non-existence, or dreamless sleep, etc. etc.). I can add that it may be cultural as well.

Most my thoughts are about antinatalism (Is life worth STARTING) which is a different question than suicide (Is life worth CONTINUING). Also, usually Pessimism is a consolation while still being alive- one that is more aware of the structural and contingent suffering. You can even say it is a coping strategy, but one that does not ignore what is going on, or try to diminish it, etc. but directly face it head on, and promotes free discussion that is suppressed under slogans.

As envisioned by Lao Tzu et. al., It is we humans who bring the universe into being out of non-being. In my view, that makes the universe half human. — T Clark

This idea accords with Neoplatonism and Schopenhauer's philosophy as well.