Depression is in due to impatience; you want it now, but it takes time and so you slouch in dissatisfied boredom, and give up. And once you stand under for a bit, it'll sink in and you'll understand.

You're rushing through life, shakingly focused - barely making out some certain end and with all your attention - panic. Everything else suddenly appears to lose meaning, though it's just you ignoring it in favour of some distant noise that reverberates through you.

It's a whole lot of tension for nothing, precisely because you try to rush through rather than float by.
A blurry mess and beyond it, life.

And compassion? That's just patience.

Yet, this thread isn't about me. More of a feel-good, me-too?

Have you experienced something similar?

What I am getting at is that existential depression is an egocentric view of life, where compassion subterfuges for such an abstract term denoted in economics as 'rational behavior'. Instead, I would characterize this state of existential ennui towards a more compassionate view of seeing the world as fundamentally lacking in such compassion.

What are your thoughts about this? It seems almost as if the childlike care for others, parents, and such is sublimated into something profoundly repugnant. Why does this happen or what happens in such individuals who possess this trait of care or compassion? — Wallows

Compassion is ‘suffering with’. It’s recognising that we all experience pain, loss and humility as a part of life, and we should connect and collaborate on this level with those around us. It’s not so much about eliminating suffering in the world, but about being prepared to accept our fair share of it.

Pity is failing to connect on this level: the suffering is either yours or it is mine.

We often claim to have compassion for those who are suffering, such as when we give our spare change or used/unwanted possessions to the poor. But this is not compassion, it’s pity. When we see that someone is suffering from hunger we recognise how that feels, but we refuse to accept that we should also suffer from hunger. So we eat our fill first, and then give the leftovers: this is pity. Compassion is inviting them to join us in the meal, or giving them the jacket we’re wearing.

In self-pity, we see another’s suffering as our own, and fail to accept that they are also suffering in their own way. When we realise that our parents’ lives are fleeting, that they will die, we recognise only how that feels for us to lose them, not for them to lose their life. We care that they will die, but not for them - only for ourselves. Our attempts to ‘understand’ how they might suffer are limited to only how the life they lose relates to us.

Buddha taught that life is suffering, and the only way to transcend suffering is to accept it in our own lives, instead of trying to resist it. But to accept suffering is not to wallow in it as such, or wear it like a badge of martyrdom, waving it in people’s faces as if I am the only one who suffers. To accept suffering in our lives is to simply absorb it and move on as if it’s just part of life.

Compassion is to recognise that when I see someone suffering from hunger, their suffering is not mine to solve, but mine to share. I will never eliminate suffering, either in my life or in the world. But I know that I can and should tolerate more suffering than I currently have in my life, if that goes some way towards sharing in the suffering of others.

Nice post @Possibility.

But to accept suffering is not to wallow in it as such, or wear it like a badge of martyrdom, waving it in people’s faces as if I am the only one who suffers. To accept suffering in our lives is to simply absorb it and move on as if it’s just part of life. — Possibility

I feel as though wallowing is the appropriate response if life truly is suffering. One has to understand that the frantic pace we set ourselves and are imposed by society as necessary, are actually quite detrimental to one's life and way of being. It is this haphazard push for more, that is harmful actually. And, I suppose Cynicism deserves a mention here. One can either become cynical or compassionate at the suffering of others. Is there a third way?

I feel as though wallowing is the appropriate response if life truly is suffering. — Wallows

Life is not only suffering, though. The point is that we shouldn’t be focused on trying to avoid it or eliminate it, but on what we can do with our life in spite of it.

One has to understand that the frantic pace we set ourselves and are imposed by society as necessary, are actually quite detrimental to one's life and way of being. It is this haphazard push for more, that is harmful actually. — Wallows

The ‘haphazard push for more’ is simply trying to avoid or eliminate the ‘suffering’ experience of loss or lack. Our lives are incomplete - as living beings we are dissipative structures in a state of disequilibrium, continually in the process of internalising part of our environment and losing part of ourselves as ‘waste’. To live is to be incomplete. This is an unavoidable condition of life. We need to accept that we will never reach a point in our lives when we feel like we have enough. Then we can stop pushing so hard for more, and instead focus on sharing this more with others.

And, I suppose Cynicism deserves a mention here. One can either become cynical or compassionate at the suffering of others. Is there a third way? — Wallows

Cynicism is an attitude of disconnection: we refuse to recognise that we have any way of changing the situation of suffering, either for ourselves or for others, by our actions. We’re all billiard balls being bounced around in life, only focused inward.

Pity and self-pity are not cynicism, and not compassion. Instead they recognise a connection, but its one that travels only one way. Pity gives in an attempt to eradicate the suffering of others; self-pity takes and expects others to notice and respond to their suffering. Compassion focuses on a two-way sharing of the experience of suffering, as just one part of this fullness of life to be shared.

What are your thoughts about this? It seems almost as if the childlike care for others, parents, and such is sublimated into something profoundly repugnant. Why does this happen or what happens in such individuals who possess this trait of care or compassion? — Wallows

This "childlike care" isn't care, it's ultimately a selfish but fully appropriate need, as a child, for protection and nurture. So, as a child, the notion of parents suddenly gone is distressing, but this desire for their well-being isn't actual care for them (or their "well-being"); it's just the childhood need for nurture; it's ultimately "selfish" in a positive sense. A child needs nurture. The love of the child for the parent is dependent. It's quite literally infantile love; the first, beginning stage of love. "Care" as a concept seems to denote a higher position in which a person is "placed in your care"; a responsibility; the parent is in the position of care, not the child. A child has no responsibility to the parent for care; they rather have a responsibility to obey and learn proper conduct in life. The child is the recipient of care, not the giver.

@unenlightened what do you think?

I will have to meditate over your last two responses @Possibility and @Noble Dust...

I didn't mean you in particular, but people in general.

Simply, you are your world. It is what you see, hear, feel and so on. So if there is so much more and better, why reduce it all to a depression - a hole - a grave?

Additionally, and not in any way diminishing the foregoing, there is the poignancy of change. At ten one often dreams of independence but familiarity with the familiar has not prevented an attachment combined with a fair-minded objectivity. At the same age I was sad that the sun is going to fade in 1 million years (or whatever the figure was). Obviously I knew that wasn't what would finish off my parents, or me. The felt void surrounded that it would finish off someone else, and the animals.

I'd like to propose another way of experiencing existential depression, which I've felt deepy and consistently since November 2016. It's not depression about what's going to happen to the people I care about: it's a sense of utter helplessness and despondence about what's happening to the planet and all species.

It pains me to no end to ponder the loss of all life on the planet because of one specie's fuck ups.

Pity and self-pity are not cynicism, and not compassion. Instead they recognise a connection, but its one that travels only one way. Pity gives in an attempt to eradicate the suffering of others; self-pity takes and expects others to notice and respond to their suffering. Compassion focuses on a two-way sharing of the experience of suffering, as just one part of this fullness of life to be shared. — Possibility

I call bs..this sounds good but provides nothing but pretend givens. Why is this necessary or desirable? By this mean why is compassion above nonexistence? More platitudes will follow.

Fullness of life is an imperative apparently. The alternative is not an emotional state. It is nonexistence. Nonexistence just is being not is. It is not depression.

I call bs..this sounds good but provides nothing but pretend givens. Why is this necessary or desirable? By this mean why is compassion above nonexistence? More platitudes will follow. — schopenhauer1

Where did I say compassion was either necessary or desirable? Just because I prefer compassion does not mean that you should.

Compassionate X above nonexistence you value.

Hey its better than the usual sport and hobby above nonexistence notion.

seeing the world as fundamentally lacking in such compassion. — Wallows

This is at once sad and joyous. Sad because reality is not compassionate. Nature is red in tooth and claw they say. Yet joyous because even through the dense haze of imperfection we see perfection, not what is but what can be.

Fullness of life is an imperative. The alternative is not an emotional state. It is nonexistence. Nonexistence just is being not is. It is not depression. — schopenhauer1

The way I see it, life is an imperative; fullness of life is a subjective experience. And there is more than one alternative.

A number of alternatives involve shutting out, ignoring or denying the full extent of what living involves of necessity, while continuing to at least subconsciously respond to stimuli. I imagine this can be emotionally exhausting or frustrating. I would say that existential depression is a symptom of some of these alternatives, but I’m only addressing the experience as it was presented.

Nonexistence is an absolute rejection of life, a refusal to interact at any level. I agree - this is not depression. To me it’s more of a concept.

life is an imperative — Possibility

Meaning brute life, like hunger, staying warm, thirst, and the like once one is alive or that life needs to perpetuate itself as an imperative (which then of course begs the question why)?

Nonexistence is an absolute rejection of life, a refusal to interact at any level. I agree - this is not depression. To me it’s more of a concept. — Possibility

Yes, nonexistence is kind of the existential foil to any stated reason we perpetuate existence.

Meaning brute life, like hunger, staying warm, thirst, and the like once one is alive or that life needs to perpetuate itself as an imperative (which then of course begs the question why)? — schopenhauer1

Meaning hunger, cold, thirst, loss, humility, inevitable death and the like once one is alive, yes. Life does not need to perpetuate itself. We like to think it does because it takes the focus off the ultimate loss.

Meaning hunger, cold, thirst, loss, humility, inevitable death and the like once one is alive, yes. Life does not need to perpetuate itself. We like to think it does because it takes the focus off the ultimate loss. — Possibility

I think there is something about happiness principle in there, or self-actualization, or civilization progress, or some such. The ultimate loss is more of an afterthought for most unless you are living with death everyday (nice juxtaposition, living with death). Either way, the perpetuation is for aforementioned reasons or ones of that genre.

I think there is something about happiness principle in there, or self-actualization, or civilization progress, or some such. The ultimate loss is more of an afterthought for most unless you are living with death everyday (nice juxtaposition, living with death). Either way, the perpetuation is for aforementioned reasons or ones of that genre. — schopenhauer1

All these reasons are only masking or denying the reality: that pain, loss/lack and humility are essential to the process of life.

The Happiness Principle, for instance, argues that pain is immoral - but pain is a call for increased awareness of an incident that requires interaction. To strive to avoid it at all cost is to be ignorant, selfish and continually hard-done-by. And any illusion that perpetuation is a source of pleasure and avoidance of pain is patriarchal at best.

Self-actualisation as a reason for perpetuation ignores the role of humility: that procreation is only achievable through collaboration, for instance.

Civilisation progress, on the other hand, discounts the pain, loss and humility of individuals for the sake of promised long-term eradication from a more civilised society - keep perpetuating, and one day your descendants will be pain-free and live forever...?

Heidegger says that to be human is to exist temporally between birth and death. We strive to deny or ignore it as much as possible, but the reality is that we are ‘living with death’ everyday. If you don’t believe this, then you’re either not paying attention, or you’re in denial as suggested.

The way I see it (and bear with me - the theory is in its early stages of formulation), the aim of existence as a whole is to increase awareness, connection and collaboration. All matter has initially ‘chosen’ or willed the extent of their participation in the process, and thus the nature of their existence. Living matter, and humans in particular, consist of the most interactive participants. But pain as a call to be aware, loss or lack as a call to connect and humility as a call to collaborate have each impacted on all matter, not just life, at the most rudimentary levels of existence. Still, life in general has kept saying ‘yes’, so to speak, and evolving more efficient ways to achieve this aim for the benefit of all existence.

Procreation, then, is only one strategy for continuing this process - and long since rendered less than efficient in itself.

The Happiness Principle, for instance, argues that pain is immoral - but pain is a call for increased awareness of an incident that requires interaction. To strive to avoid it at all cost is to be ignorant, selfish and continually hard-done-by. And any illusion that perpetuation is a source of pleasure and avoidance of pain is patriarchal at best. — Possibility

I don't know how avoidance of pain is "patriarchial", that seems like a misuse of that word, and a category error of that concept even. What I will say is, if there is suffering and pain in the world, why try to have more people to experience this? If you say because collaboration and learn from it, I will just say that this is circular reasoning. No one needs the pain to grow from it. Collaboration doesn't seem to be anything in and of itself beyond just something that helps individuals and societies function. But to live "for" it? No justification other than the maybe the warm fuzzy feeling the concept provides us? Actually, you said "interaction" for this one.. still sounds about the same as collaboration, but you'd have to explain your difference.

Self-actualisation as a reason for perpetuation ignores the role of humility: that procreation is only achievable through collaboration, for instance. — Possibility

See above about collaboration.

Civilisation progress, on the other hand, discounts the pain, loss and humility of individuals for the sake of promised long-term eradication from a more civilised society - keep perpetuating, and one day your descendants will be pain-free and live forever...? — Possibility

Yes, here I agree.. that is that it is wrong to use people as vehicles for some abstract, non-individual ideology (progress, technological advancement, ego-inflation of the person who thinks they are so innovative and/or good with finance and wants masses to "benefit" from his/her deeds, etc.).

The way I see it (and bear with me - the theory is in its early stages of formulation), the aim of existence as a whole is to increase awareness, connection and collaboration. All matter has initially ‘chosen’ or willed the extent of their participation in the process, and thus the nature of their existence. — Possibility

This just sounds incorrect. Matter chooses? Matter exists, sure. Animals are born from circumstances that occurred in the previous generation, so no individual can participate or will it.. someone actually wills it for the succeeding generation.

Heidegger says that to be human is to exist temporally between birth and death. We strive to deny or ignore it as much as possible, but the reality is that we are ‘living with death’ everyday. If you don’t believe this, then you’re either not paying attention, or you’re in denial as suggested. — Possibility

Granted, but I actually think this matters more in times of complete catastrophe more than most functioning society.. Heidegger's more interesting idea was that of "thrownness" that which we cannot help being born into.. society's makeup, history, and our environmental contingencies, for example.

But pain as a call to be aware, loss or lack as a call to connect and humility as a call to collaborate have each impacted on all matter, not just life, at the most rudimentary levels of existence. Still, life in general has kept saying ‘yes’, so to speak, and evolving more efficient ways to achieve this aim for the benefit of all existence.

Procreation, then, is only one strategy for continuing this process - and long since rendered less than efficient in itself. — Possibility

You are placing some Platonic-like goal in evolution that isn't there. Evolution is not aiming for the benefit of existence. It isn't aiming at anything. The mechanism is self-perpetuating, that is a given, but it is really trial and error, keeping features that work for the animal on an individual level, that then gets propagated to other individuals that would shape a new species in an environmental niche. Of course, what you aren't talking about is the mutations that don't work out, that are detrimental for the individual and the species.

I don't know how avoidance of pain is "patriarchial", that seems like a misuse of that word, and a category error of that concept even. — schopenhauer1

I didn’t say that avoidance of pain was patriarchal at all. I said that the illusion that the process of perpetuation (sexual reproduction, childbirth and parenting) succeeds in avoiding pain is a patriarchal illusion at best.

What I will say is, if there is suffering and pain in the world, why try to have more people to experience this? If you say because collaboration and learn from it, I will just say that this is circular reasoning. No one needs the pain to grow from it. — schopenhauer1

More people experiencing suffering and pain in the world is a consequence of this misguided ‘need’ to procreate as a solution to suffering. If you can find a way for the universe to maximise its awareness, connection and collaboration without the process of life, then please share it with the rest of us.

Not everyone needs to experience the pain to grow from it - I agree. Higher levels of human interaction - of awareness, connection and collaboration through language and meaning, for instance - enables this. But someone needs to have experienced it, at least. The experience of pain needs to have existed - that is unavoidable. Not only that, but it needs to be an experience we can relate to, otherwise how can we learn from it?

Collaboration doesn't seem to be anything in and of itself beyond just something that helps individuals and societies function. But to live "for" it? No justification other than the maybe the warm fuzzy feeling the concept provides us? Actually, you said "interaction" for this one.. still sounds about the same as collaboration, but you'd have to explain your difference. — schopenhauer1

Collaboration is working together in achieving for the benefit of all involved. Interaction is more general: when you experience pain, this is a call to attend to what is happening as a source of new information. If all you do in response is take a pain-killer, you’re not gaining much information. I’m not saying you shouldn’t take pain-killers, only that the pain should not be perceived as an affront to your existence.

This just sounds incorrect. Matter chooses? Matter exists, sure. Animals are born from circumstances that occurred in the previous generation, so no individual can participate or will it.. someone actually wills it for the succeeding generation. — schopenhauer1

I figured that’s what you would jump on. Matter exists only insofar as it interacts. We currently think of matter as three-dimensional objects in time, or four-dimensional events at best, and struggle to make the required connection to mind, where potentiality, value and meaning somehow impact on the world. Process philosophy attributes an experiential aspect to all matter, and quantum mechanics suggests that we cannot overlook the role of an observer or subjective experience in the interaction of matter, so it’s not such a paradigm shift, in my view.

Animals are born from circumstances that occurred in the previous generation, but we cannot predict this occurrence as accurately as we’d like, can we? I’m not saying an embryo is giving any thought to the matter, mind you. By choice or will, I simply refer to a yes/no answer to certain interactions in relation to awareness, connection and collaboration at the most rudimentary level. Helium is a relatively inert substance, in that the choice of interactions is limited by nature. Carbon, on the other hand, is open to a much wider variety of interactions by nature. The specific chemical reactions that contribute to the generation of life open up the variety of these interactions exponentially.

Granted, but I actually think this matters more in times of complete catastrophe more than most functioning society.. Heidegger's more interesting idea was that of "thrownness" that which we cannot help being born into.. society's makeup, history, and our environmental contingencies, for example. — schopenhauer1

Yes, it’s much easier in a functioning society to feel entitled to live forever, to not lose our life or a loved one, to not feel hunger or suffer from pain, and to always feel superior in everything we do...
By ‘thrownness’ Heidegger refers to the inseparable nature of our being in the world and in time. The idea that one’s mind is distinct from its physical circumstances is certainly false - and yet we are also capable of understanding and relating to the world from a position that transcends time.

You are placing some Platonic-like goal in evolution that isn't there. Evolution is not aiming for the benefit of existence. It isn't aiming at anything. The mechanism is self-perpetuating, that is a given, but it is really trial and error, keeping features that work for the animal on an individual level, that then gets propagated to other individuals that would shape a new species in an environmental niche. Of course, what you aren't talking about is the mutations that don't work out, that are detrimental for the individual and the species. — schopenhauer1

Like Nagel, I simply dispute the application of Darwinian evolution theory as a comprehensive answer to ALL diversity in nature - it isn’t sufficient. If it really was a case of survival of the fittest, then why do humans produce some of the most fragile offspring, who are built more for maximising awareness, connection and collaboration than for survival?

That’s not to say that natural selection doesn’t exist at all. What I propose is a teleological evolution of integrated information systems, in which natural selection is a limiting process that applies to living matter in particular. Mutations that don’t work out are as informative to us in their apparent failure as those that survive, aren’t they?

The experience of pain needs to have existed - that is unavoidable. Not only that, but it needs to be an experience we can relate to, otherwise how can we learn from it? — Possibility

This is all assuming we need to learn from it. Why? I will essentially keep asking you that so we can bypass any unnecessary posts. This also contradicts what you said here:

Not everyone needs to experience the pain to grow from it - I agree. — Possibility

But anyways, there is no reason to learn from suffering. In fact, if we didn't procreate, no one will "need" anything- collaboration, interaction, learning, etc.

Process philosophy attributes an experiential aspect to all matter, and quantum mechanics suggests that we cannot overlook the role of an observer or subjective experience in the interaction of matter, so it’s not such a paradigm shift, in my view. — Possibility

Ah the Whitehead thing. I dabble in that. But here you are conflating some sort of material pscyhism, with some sort of animal psychism, and worse, human pyschism. Human mind has a self-reflective aspect- more of the "condemned to be free" kind. In other words, we have choices and we know we have choices. We can simply choose not to have children. Even if I was to grant you the idea that matter "wills", humans have choices, one of them being to not procreate. Simple as that. To say there is an overriding scheme above this (some telos) is to circumvent this idea. You will have to directly address that and not simply assert how telos (and life) will "find a way" like the guy from Jurassic Park. Because, actually no, it is conceivable (if not at all likely), human deliberation at least, can find a way to rebel against the idea that more people should be procreated.

Carbon, on the other hand, is open to a much wider variety of interactions by nature. The specific chemical reactions that contribute to the generation of life open up the variety of these interactions exponentially. — Possibility

Let's be clear, carbon might interact, but it does not make a choice. It does not will. It follows the dictates of various forces like electromagnetism, strong force, electron exchange, etc. The valence atoms interact with other ones to create molecules, etc.

If it really was a case of survival of the fittest, then why do humans produce some of the most fragile offspring, who are built more for maximising awareness, connection and collaboration than for survival? — Possibility

Contingency, contingency, contingency...Human childbirth is/was painful and was much more risky.. you have this big human head and too small pelvic region in female. Why? Human brains are big. Living on the border of forest and savanna, humans stood upright, lost hair, used hands for tools, had some sort of mutation that allowed for language, which made even more changes neurologically and cognitively. This created more of a cultural way of survival vs. hardwired, etc. To suggest we are experiments of some universal telos is not much different than theological ideas of God. Either way, this telos/god would have some explaining to do as to why we need to be It's little experiments. Also, either way, we can choose to no follow the directive of this telos, if we so choose. It can be overridden. The circularity is just pushed back to the telos.. Why do we have to follow the directive of the telos? By the way, I don't endorse this view that there is a telos.. I happen to think we just live in a universe (maybe one of many?) that happened to create self-perpetuating mechanisms which lead to life. No need for some overriding force behind it.. And if it is the universe directed at something, that has no bearing on the individual. Interaction doesn't mean anything other than interaction.. There is nothing above and beyond this. You are making interaction into more interesting or romantic-sounding than it is.

That’s not to say that natural selection doesn’t exist at all. What I propose is a teleological evolution of integrated information systems, in which natural selection is a limiting process that applies to living matter in particular. Mutations that don’t work out are as informative to us in their apparent failure as those that survive, aren’t they? — Possibility

But then, you are looking at this grandiose things, when suffering happens at an individual level.. Yes maladaptation is quite informative, but tell that to the suffering animal who is affected by it. Understanding a larger "narrative" or seeing a cool principle (like "interaction" or "collaboration") as something behind the scenes, does not negate the negatives of individual lives, nor does it add anything to what is the case. These are just fuzzy descriptors. And then what? We still live our lives.. At the end of the day, humans can choose to simply stop putting more people into existence. Somehow people feel though, that a way of life "must" be perpetuated. This is bad faith.. No one needs to live to experience a way of life. "Ways of life" are not some poor fellow that needs a human host in some symbiotic relationship. Rather, the parent is inculcated that their life would be more fulfilled (read less bored and less time to self-reflect) if they were to procreate and then inculcate the new being. Joy and happiness have been weaponized as reasons of control. People need to live a way of life because ya know..joy and happiness.. and a lot of control and suffering. No one needs to be controlled, no one needs to joy and happiness prior to birth.

This is all assuming we need to learn from it. Why? — schopenhauer1

I think you misunderstand me, here. You don’t need to do anything. You don’t need to learn from suffering (yours or someone else’s), and you don’t need to procreate. You don’t even need to live (despite what your bodily systems might prefer) - you have the capacity to check out at any time. There is no overriding compulsion for you to understand the universe - that it’s an underlying drive inherent in all matter does not make it a need as such. It doesn’t override or circumvent anything - it’s what the universe does when we haven’t got it trying to do (or to not do) anything else, for whatever reason.

I’m thinking now that teleology is the wrong term here, because I’m not talking about a specific aim or overriding purpose. The universe is striving to understand itself - your life is part of that process, but you’re under no obligation to participate. Follow your own agenda, but understand that this inherent striving will continue with or without your help. It’s not about nature finding a way to procreate, it’s about humanity (as the most effective participants) finding more efficient and effective ways to increase awareness, connection and collaboration on a universal scale. Procreation is NOT the answer - that’s not my argument at all.

Let's be clear, carbon might interact, but it does not make a choice. It does not will. It follows the dictates of various forces like electromagnetism, strong force, electron exchange, etc. The valence atoms interact with other ones to create molecules, etc. — schopenhauer1

Again, a misunderstanding. Carbon IS matter that has already made choices which fundamentally distinguish it from helium, from our point of view. It’s all matter, but it’s the inherent will to interact with such variety that makes carbon carbon - not any creator.

At the end of the day, humans can choose to simply stop putting more people into existence. Somehow people feel though, that a way of life "must" be perpetuated. This is bad faith.. No one needs to live to experience a way of life. "Ways of life" are not some poor fellow that needs a human host in some symbiotic relationship. Rather, the parent is inculcated that their life would be more fulfilled (read less bored and less time to self-reflect) if they were to procreate and then inculcate the new being. Joy and happiness have been weaponized as reasons of control. People need to live a way of life because ya know..joy and happiness.. and a lot of control and suffering. No one needs to be controlled, no one needs to joy and happiness prior to birth. — schopenhauer1

I agree with all of this, except for what I’ve highlighted in bold, which I find confusing. Are you saying here that we don’t need to create another life in order to experience the fullness of life? If so, then once again, I agree. Funnily enough, this is not a new argument, but is hidden away in the NT (in the words of Jesus) in the hope that no-one finds it or takes it seriously...

Having expressed my agreement here, I will say that I’ve personally learned more about the universe, life, myself and people in general from my own experience of raising two children - with all of its past present and future pain, humiliation, sacrifice and loss - than I have learned from anything else so far. I can’t deny that. Of course, the fact that they’re my children I accept as fundamentally unimportant, and I could have learned more from raising children that were not my own. In fact, I could have learned MUCH more just from increasing awareness, connection and collaboration with everyone and everything that currently exists in the world, instead of trying to create my own part of the world to control...hindsight’s 20/20, isn’t it?

But then, you are looking at this grandiose things, when suffering happens at an individual level.. Yes maladaptation is quite informative, but tell that to the suffering animal who is affected by it. Understanding a larger "narrative" or seeing a cool principle (like "interaction" or "collaboration") as something behind the scenes, does not negate the negatives of individual lives, nor does it add anything to what is the case. These are just fuzzy descriptors. And then what? We still live our lives.. — schopenhauer1

And so we come back full circle...

You can argue that suffering shouldn’t happen all you want, but it doesn’t change the fact that it does happen on an individual level, yes. The most effective thing we can do to prevent or reduce the individual suffering of others is stop working so hard to avoid it as we live our own lives - by our ignorance and fear, or our refusal to connect or collaborate. This applies to how we interact with the entire universe, not just other human beings. Because the more we do to avoid pain, loss, sacrifice and humiliation in our own lives, the more we contribute to it in the lives of others.

What are your thoughts about this? It seems almost as if the childlike care for others, parents, and such is sublimated into something profoundly repugnant. Why does this happen or what happens in such individuals who possess this trait of care or compassion? — Shawn

To answer your last two questions, I will do so based on my own experiences. I am not proclaiming certainty or absolute truth from my experiences. Just stating my opinion based on anecdotes from my own life. I will do so in this fashion because you asked the forum world what we think about these questions. Lastly, I am not trying to be completely rational, logical in my answers, just trying to ponder the questions based on what I have seen and felt about the subjects.

Based on observations of my own life, I think many individuals have resentment towards a childlike curiosity and display it in many forms. One of the forms being the fact that these individuals treat childlike curiosity, compassion, and care like some sort of 'sin' or wrongdoing. Perhaps the resentment stems from acknowledging their own existential situation themselves: that they have been given one life, one childhood, and one chance to 'live.' Perhaps there is a pain in their childhood, adolescence, and/or their current adult phase of life. If we suppose this is true for their minds, then the resentment is understandable to another person who is trying to 'care' for others or is worrisome over the pains and passions of their peers, friends, and family members. I say that this is a possibility because it may remind them that they were once a child with this respectful curiosity and compassion before their psyches were chipped at by suffering, pain, and the dark instances of immorality in the world. But these are all just possibilities, aren't they? For instance, throughout my childhood and my teenage years I always just wanted to be 'nice' to people and make everyone as 'happy' as possible. Didn't matter the scenario or event, I always tried the best I could to make this happen for the room. (I think this was the case because I understood at a very young age that we live and we die. There is a day we are born and a day we decease.) So, for me, this is how this compassion and care was birthed in my own mind, I guess. For others, it may be the same or something different. I can see how it would be either.

So, perhaps the 'explanation' for why this arises in children or persons in later stages of life is not obtainable for a philosopher, or perhaps it is. But there does appear to be true in the fact that children/people do experience this and there are harsh reactions from adults to this kind of compassion and curiosity. My opinion on whether or not there is an 'absolute,' overarching truth on 'why' it occurs in people is that there is no one answer, and I think human existence is set up this way on purpose.

But this is all just my 2 cents on the questions you brought up. Thank you for creating a wonderful discussion. I have thought about this for many years. Cheers!