I suggest (along with Buddhists and Hindus), that the restful end-of-lives is experienced only by people who are already restful. — Michael Ossipoff

That doesn't follow. I could just say death is the end of life for that individual being. That is more empirically evident than your schema.

At the end of a life, before the deep timeless and identityless-ness is reached, there's a time of mere absence of waking-consciousness, a time when the person doesn't consciously remember about his/her recent life, or know whether s/he is coming or going....but retains hir (his/her) subconscious inclinations, predispositions, and will-to-life.

That will-to-life is also inborn, in an infant, and a not-yet-born infant. — Michael Ossipoff

Besides doctrines from Hindu/Buddhist writings, what proof is there of this reincarnation of the individual?

I suggest (along with Buddhists and Hindus), that the restful end-of-lives is experienced only by people who are already restful. — Michael Ossipoff

That doesn't follow. — schopenhauer1

I say it follows from common-sense. You express restlessness. Then why would you expect rest, final peace and quietude when unconsciousness comes, at the end of this life?

"To sleep, perchance to dream"

I could just say death is the end of life for that individual being. That is more empirically evident than your schema.

No, neither suggestion has empirical evidence.

At the end of a life, before the deep timeless and identityless-ness is reached, there's a time of mere absence of waking-consciousness, a time when the person doesn't consciously remember about his/her recent life, or know whether s/he is coming or going....but retains hir (his/her) subconscious inclinations, predispositions, and will-to-life.

That will-to-life is also inborn, in an infant, and a not-yet-born infant. — Michael Ossipoff


Besides doctrines from Hindu/Buddhist writings, what proof is there of this reincarnation of the individual?

No proof. Neither is there any proof to the contrary. I claim that neither suggestion has default priority.

None of us has died (and remembered it).

But, as I said, if there's a reason for our being in a life, and if that reason remains at the end of this life, then that suggests a resulting life.

I suggest that you're the one making a bold and less-likely suggestion, if you suggest that there's no reason why we're in a life.

Reincarnation pretty much follows from the uncontroversial metaphysics of the describable and explainable.

Michael Ossipoff

Have you read Clement Rosset? You might like his take on the essential metaphysical "cruelty" of the universe, and how the two responses to that are basically either the fig-leaf approach of traditional philosophies or the joyful yes-saying(eternal return, etc.) of a few maverick philosophers like Montaigne and Nietzsche.

I don't think it's all that helpful to cast the universe in such human terms though. It's really more that the universe is indifferent - you can go with the grain or against the grain, the universe doesn't care one way or the other. We are in a corner of it that seems relatively benign, but that's an accident of our evolutionary adaptation to the situation we find ourselves in. Exposure to a nice, sunny day would be anathema to a mole rat.

Have you read Clement Rosset? You might like his take on the essential metaphysical "cruelty" of the universe, and how the two responses to that are basically either the fig-leaf approach of traditional philosophies or the joyful yes-saying(eternal return, etc.) of a few maverick philosophers like Montaigne and Nietzsche. — gurugeorge

No, but that seems like ideas I might want to read more on. The best response is to not have another person be born to experience the broken world that is always needing maintenance repair, novel change,and stuff to occupy the restless human striving. Schop would point to asceticism- deny your own illusionary will. I’ve fasted for three days, it is quite eye opening to ones own nature as needy animal..if we are to analogize need with brokenness then we are always broken, as we are never fully satisfied. Of course, satisfaction to its fullest extent is a state akin to death, or dreamless sleep, as @Baden brought up. So denying the will is not wholly feasible for most..what of love then? Spending time with significant other? Love is unevenly distributed, hard to build, hard to maintain, and often leads to more brokenness. What of friends? They can often disappoint or not come through and true friends can often be as hard to find as a significant other. What of projects? Often they are filling a void and lead to more need. They are the ultimate middle class way to salvation. A project brings with it a badge of honor. Is it social signaling? Is it to get into flow state? Is it for money and status? All indications of an initial broken state to begin with.

The best response is to not have another person be born to experience the broken world that is always needing maintenance repair, novel change,and stuff to occupy the restless human striving. — schopenhauer1

See, the problem is, most people don't find that problematic, because most people are built to cope with it just fine - in which case you might consider the possibility that it's you that's "broken" (I trust you understand I don't mean that in an insulting way, but as something for contemplation).

I always find the pessimistic stance a bit of a pose. As the great British poet and occultist Aleister Crowley said, "It is yet to be recorded that any man brought comfort to his fellows by moping."

Also, Love is not the only good in the universe. Strife is also good. (Love and Strife being the two fundamental forces in the universe according to Empedocles - "you can't have one, you can't have one, you can't have one with the o-o-o-o-ther." :) ) As the Daoists too noted a long, long time ago, there's a rhythm to life, activity and relaxation, synthesis and analysis, catabolism and anabolism, Blake's "Angels" and "Devils," etc., etc. - and none of us know whether either is ultimately "good" (in fact either can be good or bad depending on the circumstances, or depending on whether they're taken "too far" or not, which again is an aspect of tact, or virtue in the Aristotelian sense).

On the matter of going "too far" in a virtue, consider what would happen if we did, say, ban conception. Wouldn't that be adding to the quantum of misery somewhat? But that's not what we set out to do was it, seeing as we were supposed to be into Love and all that?

See, the problem is, most people don't find that problematic, because most people are built to cope with it just fine - in which case you might consider the possibility that it's you that's "broken" (I trust you understand I don't mean that in an insulting way, but as something for contemplation). — gurugeorge

So unevenly distributed? Ah right

So unevenly distributed? Ah right — schopenhauer1

What's wrong with uneven distribution?

I find it interesting that this very big important part of the human experience is so hard for people to achieve, maintain, and access. Only some people experience it and sustain it. That it’s not something more common is troubling and speaks to more brokenness to begin with.

I find it interesting that this very big important part of the human experience is so hard for people to achieve, maintain, and access. Only some people experience it and sustain it. That it’s not something more common is troubling and speaks to more brokenness to begin with. — schopenhauer1

So you want everything about life to be easy for you, and otherwise it's "broken". You're too demanding; you expect too much. That's the source of your dis-satisfaction. You expect a physical world to be perfect, some sort of custom-deluxe provided environment for you, and you expect human-animals to have immediate complete mastery of life.

You seem to want worldly life to be like the Biblical Literalists' Heaven.

You're too demanding.

Humanity is a uniquely-confused and pathological species. What else is new?

Michael Ossipoff

set your standards low and you won`t be dissapointed :joke:

I don't think it's all that helpful to cast the universe in such human terms though. It's really more that the universe is indifferent - you can go with the grain or against the grain, the universe doesn't care one way or the other. — gurugeorge

First, let's clarify that when you say "The Universe", you (I assume) mean what Western philosophers mean by "The World", by which they refer to all that is. ...Reality.

You're asserting that Reality is indifferent. I acknowledge your impression and feeling about that, but I suggest that it's a bit immodest to assert about that.

Michael Ossipoff

Again, why is equal distribution so important? And so worth cursing reality for the lack of it?

I mean, would you be happier if we were all identical clones raised in identical circumstances?

Well I haven't seen any manifestations of particularism in the universe, so I go with "indifferent." ;)

set your standards low and you won`t be disappointed :joke: — Aleksander Kvam

Certainly your standards can bring you disappointment.

Expecting life and the physical world to be made-to-order for your luxurious ease, comfort, and (perceived) need for constant entertainment is an unreasonable and unrealistic expectation.

But need we set standards for life, and whatever else Schope is setting standards for? And by what justification do we presume to set those standards?

Michael Ossipoff

low-standards could also mean living a minimalistic and simple life.

low-standards could also mean living a minimalistic and simple life. — Aleksander Kvam

A good choice.

Michael Ossipoff

Well I haven't seen any manifestations of particularism in the universe, so I go with "indifferent." ;) — gurugeorge

:D

No one's saying what you should or shouldn't go with, given what you've seen or haven't seen.

I was just commenting about assertion. ...and a presumption that your own perceptions, experiences, feelings and impressions, and your emotional conclusions from, and reaction to, them, have universal authority about how things are.

No one is questioning the validity, for you, of your perceptions, experiences, feelings and impressions.

Michael Ossipoff

False equivalency. Peoples ideal partner can vary. The point is an integral part of what most people consider a valuable good, is not achieved by most.

And chancing the world to fit you, could be hard or even impossibe, so you either adapt or chance yourself.

So you want everything about life to be easy for you, and otherwise it's "broken". You're too demanding; you expect too much. That's the source of your dis-satisfaction. You expect a physical world to be perfect, some sort of custom-deluxe provided environment for you, and you expect human-animals to have immediate complete mastery of life. — Michael Ossipoff

You tend to personalize or psychologize the philosophy rather than view it as a subject separated from the person who holds it. I suggest fruitful dialogue would be had from looking at the viewpoint and not throwing it back on the viewer. That would be a subtle form of ad hominem, and a turn away from the issues.

I will say that if I was to have set a philosophical trap, you stepped right in it. Your reply here reflects the exact point that the OP was making. The issue is not why don’t we learn to toughen up and accept our lot, but rather, what is going on here that this is our lot.

If you snort and chortle in really that we need struggle (cue German raving philosopher madman) in order to have goals to summit, then I will point you to Schopenhauers quote about the paradox and contradiction that is man..

.
You tend to personalize or psychologize the philosophy rather than view it as a subject separated from the person who holds it. I suggest fruitful dialogue would be had from looking at the viewpoint and not throwing it back on the viewer. That would be a subtle form of ad hominem, and a turn away from the issues.

.
It’s just in the nature of reply, that I mention your statements that I’m replying to. My criticisms of your positions sound like personal criticisms, but is that avoidable when criticizing positions?
.

I will say that if I was to have set a philosophical trap, you stepped right in it. Your reply here reflects the exact point that the OP was making. The issue is not why don’t we learn to toughen up and accept our lot, but rather, what is going on here that this is our lot.

.
I’ve answered at length about what’s going on here. Of course you’re free to disagree with my metaphysical explanation, and you evidently do.
.
As for acceptance of our lot, that’s where we disagree, because I suggest that (whether or not we agree about the metaphysical explanation), your non-acceptance is just unrealistic.
.
But no, I haven’t evaded or skipped over the matter of what’s going on here. I’ve answered about it. You just don’t agree with my answer, as is your right.
.
I don’t believe in ad-hominem critical attack-style, but what answer to you leave for me, other than to say that your non-acceptance of life as it is, is unreaslistic?

“I want it all! I want cushy paradise on Earth! I want and [believe that I] need constant entertainment!”

Michael Ossipoff

I've already said this, but, as for why we're in this situation, it's because of us ourselves. My metaphysical explanation is that you were born into a life and a societal world that is consistent with you.

...because, among the infinity of life-experience possibility-stories, there timelessly is one with you as protagonist.

Consistency is the one requirement for an experience-story, because there's no such thing as mutually-inconsistent facts.

What kind of world would be consistent with the person that you are? For one thing, it would be a world with the sorts of people who would beget you, and with the society that those people would make.

Anyway, who said that a physical world and a life in one (...which is what you're inclined and predisposed to, in that timeless experience-story) is perfectly paradisiacal? Arguably that's impossible for a physical world.

And that's even if you haven't fallen into (unavoidably-present) behavioral traps and gotten yourself snarled-up in ugly, harmful, and regrettable conduct of some kind.

Michael Ossipoff

And changing the world to fit you, could be hard or even impossible, so you either adapt or change yourself. — Aleksander Kvam

Exactly.

a presumption that your own perceptions, experiences, feelings and impressions, and your emotional conclusions from, and reaction to, them, have universal authority — Michael Ossipoff

Oh ok, thanks for the sermon. But I haven't seen anyone else reporting on any universal particularism either. I suppose there are some people who claim "miracles" but such cases seem to fizzle out on close investigation.

But then there's always JBS Haldane's comment about beetles, which does give one food for thought :)

The point is an integral part of what most people consider a valuable good, is not achieved by most. — schopenhauer1

Not achieved by "most?" I'm not sure if people have such a concrete idea of their ideal partner as all that, and anyway, isn't it sort of a good thing if you find yourself loving someone who isn't your pre-planned ideal? Didn't the Stones have a song about that?

Ah, that reminds me, yes: love is all about loving what is.

I was just commenting about assertion. ...and a presumption that your own perceptions, experiences, feelings and impressions, and your emotional conclusions from, and reaction to, them, have universal authority about how things are. — Michael Ossipoff

Hmmmm. In relation to a HUMAN EXISTENCE, wouldn't an experience of something 'unadulturated' by language and expression, which strips the individual authenticity of what is down into the simple and general, absolutely have an authority regarding how things are? If I say "My significant-other committed suicide and 'that' made me feel extraordinarily sad" wouldn't that communicate a universal authority about how 'that thing', namely the happening of a member of a relationship committing suicide resulting in the sadness of the other member of the relationship, is?

We love life not because we are used to living but because we are used to loving." Nietzsche

but is that avoidable when criticizing positions? — Michael Ossipoff

Yes.. but I'll respond to more later.

“I want it all! I want cushy paradise on Earth! I want and [believe that I] need constant entertainment!” — Michael Ossipoff

You are being purposefully provocative now to the point of distorting my position. Entertainment is not used in the sense that senses need tantalizing (i.e. games/electronics/etc).. it is ANYTHING not directly related to survival and maintaining comfort. ANY goal related to things other than the two aforesaid things can look like many things.. religious goals, meditation, charity work, reading, learning, taking a class, staring at a tv, playing a video game, etc. etc. If anything, a universe where everything is satisfied looks more like dreamless sleep (pace Baden's observation).

I don’t believe in ad-hominem critical attack-style, but what answer to you leave for me, other than to say that your non-acceptance of life as it is, is unreaslistic? — Michael Ossipoff

I've never claimed that reality is other than the state it is. I merely made observations about how that state is. You have yet to address the issue that indeed, this is how the state is.

Not achieved by "most?" I'm not sure if people have such a concrete idea of their ideal partner as all that, — gurugeorge

I'm not saying anything particularly controversial. I'm saying that most people don't find a significant other or at least in some satisfactory manner. Humans especially have a messy social way of trying to attain and maintain this. I'm just observing this phenomenon that not many people have this "good" that most people consider rather important.