What?

I think your post got deleted.

But I read your comment before it was deleted urging me to read your previous replies to other people. So I did.

We are always going to be annoyed or disappointed at something. — schopenhauer1

Eh. How big of a deal are you making this to be? Why are you annoyed? Why are you disappointed? Because your expectations have come into conflict with reality.

Of course it is impossible to get rid of all of our expectations. But knowing the source of your angst actually takes a considerable amount of the sting away from it. Being able to laugh it off is cool.

Fighting life head-on with the attitude that focuses on the negative leads to negativity. Although everyone feels disappointment and anxiety, not everyone is beat down about it.

A pessimist would say that they are preventing the actuality of future suffering. Life ending might be a consequence, but it is passive and in recognition that there was nothing to be deprived in the first place (just our possible present sadness our projections of no future humans). — schopenhauer1

Right. I consider birth to be unnecessary and potentially harmful. It's like eating a cookie that may be stale. Is it worth it? Maybe. Then again you could get food poisoning. In this case, another person is getting food poisoning (disease/illness, accidents, disasters, death).

But it's not something I really get all worked up about, which I sense you are (using my omniscient powers of internet-empathy). Life goes on, as they say.

You know you can't actually do anything — schopenhauer1

So, in other words, defeatism.

but you are not going to let delusions that it can be overcome or the idea that we must keep producing for producing's sake or the idea that we should try to forget what is pretty much an inevitable reality that pervades life from keeping us from recognizing this tragic aesthetic. — schopenhauer1

I think this implies that you think everyone else is delusional or masochistic. I'm not necessarily disagreeing, I just want to make this clear.

You don't rebel by Nietzschean embrace. He had it all wrong. He increased the delusion more. He set a template for many other thinkers and followers to posture and fantasize about embracing (read overcoming) suffering. No, you rebel by recognizing that the suffering that is contained or is existence simply sucks, and that it is not good and recognizing it for what it is. No delusions of trying to twist it into rhetorical flourishes of "goodness" or by accepting it, or by embracing it. No, you have every right to dislike it and you should. The sooner we can rid ourselves of the delusions and recognize the existential dilemmas and contingent sufferings, put it on the table and see the pendulum of survival/goals and boredom, contingent painful experiences, annoyances as real- the instrumentality of all things of the world, then I think we can live with more verity. — schopenhauer1

This whole paragraph screams defeatism to me. Because what better way of amplifying suffering than by focusing on it and actively disliking every aspect of it that pervades your life? Nietzsche thought that the strong would be able to enjoy and relish life in a way that the weak could not. Call it delusional but at least they are enjoying it.

This is the opposite of my idea of Rebellious Pessimism. It is not good to accept suffering. Complaining is fine.. Bitch to your hearts content and be discontent with it because it is always there and unrealistic to think it can be otherwise. — schopenhauer1

But why? Do you think bitching about it makes it any better? It's completely defeatist!

And the present can be pretty crappy too. — schopenhauer1

Only if you make it.

darthy, I believe it was posts like these that threw me off about your position:

]If you are a philosophical pessimist: why do you not kill yourself right this moment? Are you depressed constantly?

If you do not subscribe to philosophical pessimism (Schopenhauer, Zapffe, Cioran, Benatar), why not?

As a personal side note: I have no idea what the hell I believe. Benatar's logic (antinatalism asymmetry) makes complete sense. Schopenhauer and even some of Zapffe's philosophy seem like fairly accurate descriptions of the human condition. I've fallen into the well of philosophical pessimism and I don't see any way out of the despair of it. I've contemplated suicide a LOT over the past month. If Benatar's asymmetry is correct (which I don't see how it could be wrong), there's absolutely no rational reason to continue to exist. Sure, there's some enjoyment in life, but when you are dead you won't miss that enjoyment. Happiness/pleasure has no effect in the equation, it seems. But when you're dead you'll also miss the suffering accompanying life, which is a pro. And you won't even know you aren't alive anymore. Is the only thing keeping me from killing myself my evolutionary instinct? Why the hell do I continue to get up in the morning, should I just end it all now? I honestly wish I'd never come across these negative positions - they make so much sense and yet have made my life a complete and utter depressive nightmare. — darthbarracuda

I get that you have probably changed your position, and have every right and reason to do so if you feel you have had a conversion of perspective of sorts. Glad to see you don't despair as much, but you clearly get the philosophical argument and have been in the thick of it, or at least in PhilosophyForum land. So, if I think you are trolling a bit, that is because I remember comments like that one above. Again, I get that your pendulum has swung a bit to a more moderate position. That being said, let me try to answer the darthbarracuda that I see in this particular post:

Eh. How big of a deal are you making this to be? Why are you annoyed? Why are you disappointed? Because your expectations have come into conflict with reality. — darthbarracuda

I don't know if it is expectations and reality. Rather, it is just a feeling, the pain can range from as physical as a cut, or the less tangible but still real emotional pain. I mentioned to another poster that radical contingency (the idea that there is either no necessary essence or no determinism behind events of the world) might lead to a nihilism of sorts whereby narrowing focus on a task will try to get you from seeing life in the wider scope of existence itself, thus mitigating angst. This in itself is nihilistic because it is a method of forgetting what the world is presenting when facing the existential condition itself.

Fighting life head-on with the attitude that focuses on the negative leads to negativity. Although everyone feels disappointment and anxiety, not everyone is beat down about it. — darthbarracuda

If you want to break this down into very basic and pragmatic terms like you are doing here, I can say quite the opposite. Someone who has his head in the sand will feel the disappointments more when the fissures break. Notice you added in "beat down". I didn't say beat down by it. That is automatic- suffering wins by its mere existence. Rather, our reaction should be one of not embrace, not of pretending one can overcome it, but of seeing it for the negativity it is, and recognize we all are all dealing with it, de facto from birth. We were all given the responsibilities of life, the burdens of life, the contingent nature of the world gives us external sufferings as well. If we recognize it, enumerate it, and realize that it is part of being an animal in the universe, the more we can reconcile with it, preferably as a community but at least one by one.

But it's not something I really get all worked up about, which I sense you are (using my omniscient powers of internet-empathy). Life goes on, as they say. — darthbarracuda

Until your next suffering episode, annoyance, or what not. Heaven, Stoicism, Nirvana.. it's all the same whatever you say in terms of "laughing it off". It's a pipe dream.

This whole paragraph screams defeatism to me. Because what better way of amplifying suffering than by focusing on it and actively disliking every aspect of it that pervades your life? Nietzsche thought that the strong would be able to enjoy and relish life in a way that the weak could not. Call it delusional but at least they are enjoying it. — darthbarracuda

Wrong, he is saying they are enjoying it. It is literary sophistry. My mind imagines his ideas attributed to a caricature of someone who did a lot of cocaine and thinking they are the king of the world.

But why? Do you think bitching about it makes it any better? It's completely defeatist! — darthbarracuda

It cannot be defeated. Accepting it is no good either, because no one actually accepts it except in platitudes to make others feel better about it in places like philosophy forums. The less you try to deny it, the less you will feel the unrealistic expectation that you will mitigate it. Accepting it doesn't mean you won't feel it as much, contrary to what some Stoic-minded people will tell you they supposedly do. Rather, accept the fact that it happens, it might be part of being alive and human, and it is ok not to like. The compassion comes in the commiseration. "That sucks, man" is better than "I looketh in the direction of naught..and I feeleth no pain" (with face emotionless and head cocked slightly upwards towards the sky like some mimic of a statue of a Greek philosopher- arrogant and smug).

Also, and perhaps most importantly, the fact that we are given suffering as a given in the first place is something to rebel against. That you overcame it- by whatever means, does not mitigate the fact that you went through it. I don't buy into the idea that you are better for overcoming it. You just wanted to because it was making you suffer. Not overcoming it, made you feel pain, trying to overcome it made you feel pain, and when you are alleviated, it does not stop but you go to the next thing and on and on.

The problem is, that though we can produce things that amaze ourselves and others, we have an abundance of self-conscious capacity makes us need to gravitate to some project to keep the mind from seeing the instrumentality. Distraction is key, but sometimes that does not work. Admittedly, some may be less distracted than others at the end of the day.

This just doesn't ring true to how life works though. — schopenhauer1

Interesting. Most people don't have time to ask existential questions to begin with so it seems that's more "how life works" than what we're doing here. :D

Interesting. Most people don't have time to ask existential questions to begin with so it seems that's more "how life works" than what we're doing here. :D — Benkei

Interesting being that one of the main aspects of culture is religion which has a large existential component to it. Not that I am a huge fan of religion, just saying that this has been the default mode of thinking for many for thousands of years (mainly to their detriment in my opinion). Besides this, I think you discount the common man's ability to self-reflect on his own situation. Most people are not unthinking reflective beasts that simply rush from one activity to the other. Well, one would hope at least. But, if you want to use the ignorance is bliss thing, perhaps that is true. As Zapffe said, distraction, isolation, anchoring, sublimation. Any one of these psychological forces can be employed to try not to think in the broadest terms as one can. If we are always on the microlevel of thought- always focused on the hypersmall, perhaps we can avoid existential anything. This is an ironic paradox being that we have to distract, toil, or be fully in survival mode which is to say not fully experience the human condition to be happier? That would be another tragedy. It is the inverse of many great thinkers- let us distract ourselves with the business of daily life's tasks, let us forget, let us distract, let us anchor. Do not look behind the curtain!

Sapentia Benkei @180 Proof @darthbarracuda @Thorongil @Agustino — schopenhauer1

I didn't receive any warnings regarding being mentioned in this thread, and I have been very busy recently, so haven't had time to reply. But I will reply to the point I find most interesting now :)

Agustino said: I have found pyrrhonism, epicureanism and stoicism in particular to be quite strong from a rational point of view. Epicureanism and stoicism, are for example, in practice, not even that far from each other; just different theoretical frameworks. — schopenhauer1

I am a pessimist at the time being, just not a metaphysical pessimist. That simply means that I believe that in the end, Nature will destroy any particular part from it; the death of the part is inevitable and necessary for the continuation of the whole. As such, every individual is doomed. But this isn't making any judgement on life itself, which would move into metaphysical pessimism.

They do think that life has suffering at the least, and their answer, if I was to boil it down to a slogan is "be indifferent to situations one cannot control". — schopenhauer1

What would the point of not being indifferent be? The situations are out of your control, whether you care about them or not, that doesn't change the fact that they are out of your control.

Stoicism tries to mitigate the fact that life presents itself as a problem (problems) to overcome, and pessimists are quick to point out that life has problems to overcome in the first place and this is not a good thing. Why should people have to cope with the problem? Why be given the problem? — schopenhauer1

It's hard to think about this when literarily all our experiences are framed in life. I'm not sure that a life without problems would be good in any sense of the term. Are you?

mere existence would satisfy us in itself, and we should want for nothing — Schopenhauer

Well, cows seem to be quite satisfied merely existing on a green pasture. It's only humans that seem to have a problem. So we can't generalise for all life. There are clearly different ways of experiencing the world, and not all of them experience mere existence as a form of suffering.

No. I pretty much agree with Hegel that Stoicism ultimately is empty posturing. It gives itself a kind of ideal to reflect on that makes one think these things are answered, but when the rubber hits the road, it's ultimately impotent. — The Great Whatever

Can you justify this please?

In all seriousness, Stoicism works for me, at least, because its ideal state (that of the sage) is more or less impossible, which is good for me, because then I have something to strive for at all times. Additionally, I like Stoicism because it's anti-hedonistic. This is possibly because I'm rather anhedonic most of the time, but also because hedonistic philosophies just look like a recipe for slavishness and misery to me. I also like Buddhism a lot, if that tells you anything. — Pneumenon

Agreed.

It's just a core tenet of Stoicism. Pleasure and pain may be choice-worthy or avoidance-worthy in some respect, but they're not 'good' and 'bad.' Only living in accordance with a certain ideal is. So a person who's tortured, if he sticks to his Stoic guns, might endure extreme pains, but his life would be no worse on that score. Bad things cannot happen to good people. — The Great Whatever

What do you disagree with here?

a) It seems inaccessible in practice because there are some who have preconditions that might make it much harder to follow than others. People with mental disorders come to mind. These people might have an extreme uphill climb compared with someone who might not have these conditions in terms of accessing a state of equanimity in terms of emotional detachment or emotional purging. Taking this into consideration, luck and fortune has more to do with becoming a Sage than the Stoic-advocate might like to admit. — schopenhauer1

Just because climbing the mountain is harder for some than for others, doesn't mean luck is responsible for those who get to the top. People who have it easy, generally don't grow, because they have no incentive. It is those who suffer a lot who have a real potential for growth. Therefore it is most likely those more disadvantaged by nature who end up close to the sage ideal - they need the big guns.

It seems wrong to purge emotional response as emotions are the first responders to what is wrong with the world. — schopenhauer1

Stoicism isn't purging us of our emotions, but rather it is, at foundation, a therapy of the emotions, which puts each emotion in its right place.

Easier to conform your will to the world than the world to your will. — WhiskeyWhiskers

Excellent point!

I think Buddhism diagnosis and prescription usually works, and leads not only to non-suffering but flourishing. And Stoicism is simply how you deal with the remaining suffering, which, incidentally, is what I am now beginning to see as the only type of suffering that makes childbirth harmful. Ebola, for example, is reason enough for a woman to not have a child in Africa. The potential for nuclear war is reason enough to abstain from having children. But abstaining from having children because they might feel bored or feel unsatisfied with something seems very decadent. — darthbarracuda

A most excellent post as well! Entirely agree. So many good thoughts in this thread! :)

I'll call this Rebellious Pessimism. You know you can't actually do anything, and you are pretty much stuck, but you are not going to let delusions that it can be overcome or the idea that we must keep producing for producing's sake or the idea that we should try to forget what is pretty much an inevitable reality that pervades life from keeping us from recognizing this tragic aesthetic. You don't rebel by Nietzschean embrace. He had it all wrong. He increased the delusion more. He set a template for many other thinkers and followers to posture and fantasize about embracing (read overcoming) suffering. No, you rebel by recognizing that the suffering that is contained or is existence simply sucks, and that it is not good and recognizing it for what it is. No delusions of trying to twist it into rhetorical flourishes of "goodness" or by accepting it, or by embracing it. No, you have every right to dislike it and you should. The sooner we can rid ourselves of the delusions and recognize the existential dilemmas and contingent sufferings, put it on the table and see the pendulum of survival/goals and boredom, contingent painful experiences, annoyances as real- the instrumentality of all things of the world, then I think we can live with more verity. — schopenhauer1

Why dwell on what can't be changed? I prefer focusing my energy on doing at least the things that I can do.

Fighting life head-on with the attitude that focuses on the negative leads to negativity. Although everyone feels disappointment and anxiety, not everyone is beat down about it. — darthbarracuda

Yes.

This whole paragraph screams defeatism to me. Because what better way of amplifying suffering than by focusing on it and actively disliking every aspect of it that pervades your life? Nietzsche thought that the strong would be able to enjoy and relish life in a way that the weak could not. Call it delusional but at least they are enjoying it. — darthbarracuda

Indeed!

I'll provide further comments when I catch a bit more time! :) This looks like it will be a very interesting discussion, especially with Buddhism also rearing its head...

Can you justify this please? — Agustino

Maybe. Are you familiar with Hegel's comments on Stoicism?

What do you disagree with here? — Agustino

I think it's possible for bad things to happen to you regardless of what your response is to that happening.

It is nihilistic to not recognize the instrumentality of things and deem it as bad. If everything is radical contingency (I don't necessarily believe that), then why not just focus on the hyper-micro feelings of working on a project (and let's forget the instrumentality right?). The project is life as it goes smoothly- the person absorbed in his music/art/work/game/trance. Don't fall into the cracks though, and see the instrumentality that is there in the background, when your mind is not occupied. — schopenhauer1

Do you think that life is bad or not? Because it's not clear to me from your reply. In fact, I don't find your reply very clear at all. What is the purpose of this project that you mention? To ignore the instrumentality of things? Meaning, I take it, that things are means to ends? Is that bad or problematic in some way? Why does it matter whether or not everything is radical contingency? And what even is radical contingency?

That Hegel says stoicism is empty posturing says nothing of how effective stoicism is for other people. He didn't see it working for him, fair enough, but he's simply wrong when he says stoicism won't work for others. It works for some, it doesn't for others. I think Seneca even said this somewhere, followed by the advice to seek a philosophy that works for you. You can't really disagree with this; one persons experience in this particular kind of matter does not speak for all. As for stoicism being ultimately impotent: Hegel vs Vice Admiral James B. Stockdale, and Hegel loses every time on this issue.

Whether or not bad things happen to you is determined first by how you define bad, and second by how immersed you are in thinking in those terms. Stoics limited good and bad strictly to moral character, or virtue. To say something is still bad regardless of what your response is, is to assume the conclusion that stoicism is working with incorrect definitions.

I'd like to respond to many more comments, but unfortunately I lack time.

Whether or not bad things happen to you is determined first by how you define bad, — WhiskeyWhiskers

No it isn't. If it was, you could just define bad so that it involves only things that never happened to you, and your life would become perfect (it would have nothing bad in it). So that's clearly false since people don't have that power.

Maybe. Are you familiar with Hegel's comments on Stoicism? — The Great Whatever

@The Great Whatever
Somewhat. Hard to say as I am unfamiliar with many of Hegel's works other than Phenomenology of Mind, so I don't know if I'm missing something or what exactly you're referring to...

What would the point of not being indifferent be? The situations are out of your control, whether you care about them or not, that doesn't change the fact that they are out of your control. — Agustino

Not to use @The Great Whatever's response all the time, but he had a good one. It's possible for bad things to happen regardless of your response. It just isn't good enough.. Some things are just bad to individuals. Some things are unavoidable in being indifferent to them; they simply defy our inner sensibilities. No one is impervious. Also, the struggle to get to such a height of indiiference where one cannot be touched by pain is itself a painful program of self-denial. One can say self-denial is a form of pain, albeit to get to a "higher" one of the equanimity of a stoic sage.

It's hard to think about this when literarily all our experiences are framed in life. I'm not sure that a life without problems would be good in any sense of the term. Are you?

If problems (ones involving suffering exist), then I don't see why, by logical standards, a life free from suffering would not be good, if one at least views suffering as a negative. Of course, the great line by Schopenhauer is that life can never, even in principle be completely negative free.

mere existence would satisfy us in itself, and we should want for nothing
— Schopenhauer
Well, cows seem to be quite satisfied merely existing on a green pasture. It's only humans that seem to have a problem. So we can't generalise for all life. There are clearly different ways of experiencing the world, and not all of them experience mere existence as a form of suffering.

Indeed, Schopenhauer recognized this too. Humans are the only animal that can self-reflect and reflect on the pain, emptiness, and tragedy. You also bring up a distinction which many don't seem to make. There is pain as it is lived without reflection and pain that is reflected upon on top of the pain in without reflection. Animals feel pain, animals have needs that can go unsatisfied. They don't know it though. It is not a concept. It may be a vague feeling, and I don't know what it is like to have cow pain, but certainly by empirical evidence they have some version of it.

Just because climbing the mountain is harder for some than for others, doesn't mean luck is responsible for those who get to the top. People who have it easy, generally don't grow, because they have no incentive. It is those who suffer a lot who have a real potential for growth. Therefore it is most likely those more disadvantaged by nature who end up close to the sage ideal - they need the big guns.

Look up again at my response to the struggle for equanimity. This is painful as well. Justifying it in an armchair doesn't make it better just because in theory someone "gains" a lot by struggling with their stoic growth regimen.

Why dwell on what can't be changed? I prefer focusing my energy on doing at least the things that I can do.

Well, besides the fact of what I mentioned before, that change for some would be much harder than for others due to preconditions (I am still sticking to this), the point is that we cannot always respond with equinimity. Sometimes we have to deal with stuff which is painful and not be quiet about it. A hypothetical imperative might be that one can live a worse life by living in constant emotional volatility. That's fine. However, pain is unavoidable for most (if not all), is something we are constantly encountering, and something we must contend with. I say it is good to not like that which one would not have wanted in the first place. The world being non-ideal, was not meant for you, it is simply livable enough for you. That we are simply going along with the non-ideality of things, does not mean that this is good. That we can live and thrive in a non-ideal world is not justification for it being non-ideal in the first place.

Do you think that life is bad or not? Because it's not clear to me from your reply. In fact, I don't find your reply very clear at all. What is the purpose of this project that you mention? To ignore the instrumentality of things? Meaning, I take it, that things are means to ends? Is that bad or problematic in some way? — Sapientia

I was being sarcastic and it didn't convey well. What I was saying was that you can ignore the big picture by hyper-focusing your attention on a detailed project. This does not mean that the problem does not exist. Rather, we are trying to ignore what is clearly there by distracting ourselves. Pain is still there, and existential suffering is still there.

Why does it matter whether or not everything is radical contingency? And what even is radical contingency?

What I was getting at is the notion many want to convey which is that we should just have projects to focus our attention on and not look at the existential emptiness. If there is no necessary truth at the end of things (so the radical contingency theorist might say), then all you can do is focus your attention on discrete projects. I disagree with this and think that if one widens their self-reflecting lens long enough, they will see the instrumentality of things.

Whether or not bad things happen to you is determined first by how you define bad, and second by how immersed you are in thinking in those terms. Stoics limited good and bad strictly to moral character, or virtue. To say something is still bad regardless of what your response is, is to assume the conclusion that stoicism is working with incorrect definitions. — WhiskeyWhiskers

That can work with things like boredom or minor annoyances. It's a little bit different when tragedy strikes. A storm that kills thousands of people is not good, period. Responding stoically to such an event is absurd.

That can work with things like boredom or minor annoyances. It's a little bit different when tragedy strikes. A storm that kills thousands of people is not good, period. Responding stoically to such an event is absurd. — Marchesk

I agree about the storm. I also think there is a lack of understanding about motivation. Motivations cause one to act a particular way. Most things in life have various motivations. Being indifferent to what is not-ideal, besides being largely unattainable in practice, discounts the very fact that we are motivated to do anything. This motivation hints upon the "becoming" aspect of life. We are not content, nor can we ever be, when life demands that we desire and want- sources of suffering. There is no way to escape it, even in principle. Thus, no practice of indifference will truly get rid of the Will/flux/becoming.

But sometimes one does experience contentment with life, and feel good doing whatever they happen to be doing. Maybe it's just a fleeting feeling, and maybe it can be cultivated. And also maybe it's possible to arrange one's life to encourage feeling that way more often. It doesn't do away with all suffering or discontentment, but it sounds less bad.

If one can sustain the delusion long enough and enough times, perhaps. Just don't fall in the crack and see the instrumentality for what it is, don't experience mental or physical anguish too many times. Don't let the little annoyances add up. Don't let the emptiness at the end of all endeavors make itself known to your sensibilities. How you are going to go to go to go to go. To live life, one cannot despair all the time. It is impractical. But to deny that you are profoundly affected by negative aspects is also not practical, nor truthful to oneself or others.

I also see nothing wrong with recognizing the tragic and rebelling that one would rather it never be there. There is certainly no truth or peace in pretending one can avoid the affects of pain.

I'm not sure about contentment. I've certainly felt respite, but it feels more like getting a break to breathe from drowning. Not only is it not a positive enjoyment, but rather one that's only defined relative to just how bad what was previously happening was, but it's also backhanded in that that respite is precisely what allows you to live and continue to suffer more.

The world is constructed in such a way to systematically make people suffer, as if it were 'designed' like that. Those systematic forces are too fundamental to be changed with banalities about 'just enjoying life.'

I was being sarcastic and it didn't convey well. What I was saying was that you can ignore the big picture by hyper-focusing your attention on a detailed project. This does not mean that the problem does not exist. Rather, we are trying to ignore what is clearly there by distracting ourselves. Pain is still there, and existential suffering is still there. — schopenhauer1

Sure, the problem exists, but we have some degree of control over how much of a problem we make it. Stoicism advocates a method of reducing this problem. A method which is beneficial for many. What's wrong with that?

I get the sense that your position is defeatist. Antinatalism is definitely defeatist in the sense that it gives up on finding a good enough reason to believe that life is and would be worth living in numerous cases.

What I was getting at is the notion many want to convey which is that we should just have projects to focus our attention on and not look at the existential emptiness. If there is no necessary truth at the end of things (so the radical contingency theorist might say), then all you can do is focus your attention on discrete projects. I disagree with this and think that if one widens their self-reflecting lens long enough, they will see the instrumentality of things. — schopenhauer1

Why do you disagree with that? What's wrong with doing so? Are you suggesting that we instead ought to focus more on the "existential emptiness", even if it makes us miserable? And again, what is so special about the "instrumentality of things"? If I see the instrumentality of things, then... what?

Sure, the problem exists, but we have some degree of control over how much of a problem we make it. Stoicism advocates a method of reducing this problem. A method which is beneficial for many. What's wrong with that?

I get the sense that your position is defeatist. Antinatalism is definitely defeatist in the sense that it gives up on finding a good enough reason to believe that life is and would be worth living in numerous cases. — Sapientia

The problem is that we have to "deal" with the problems in the first place. The fact that we need Stoicism in the first place tells us something.

Why do you disagree with that? What's wrong with doing so? Are you suggesting that we instead ought to focus more on the "existential emptiness", even if it makes us miserable? And again, what is so special about the "instrumentality of things"? If I see the instrumentality of things, then... what? — Sapientia

The problem is that at the end of the day, if everything is instrumental, no thought-process or practice (like Stoicism) will win you anything. To repeat what I said earlier: We are not content, nor can we ever be, when life demands that we desire and want- sources of suffering. There is no way to escape it, even in principle. Thus, no practice of indifference will truly get rid of the Will/flux/becoming.

The problem is that we have to "deal" with the problems in the first place. The fact that we need Stoicism in the first place tells us something. — schopenhauer1

But what good is it to merely point that out? We're going round in circles here. I already acknowledged that the problem exists. It's just a fact of life. It's how we react to the problem that matters. You can either learn to deal with it or give up. I propose the former.

The problem is that at the end of the day, if everything is instrumental, no thought-process or practice (like Stoicism) will win you anything. — schopenhauer1

How so? I still think you need to spell out exactly what you mean by saying that everything is instrumental, and the supposed significance of what that would entail. I'm guessing that you mean something like: all acts are pursued as a means to an end, such as attaining satisfaction or contentedness, but that this is futile, as we never reach the end. If so, I disagree. I think that a wealth of evidence suggests otherwise.

Perhaps, rather, you think that the end is attainable, but is only fleeting. (Although then it wouldn't be the case that everything is instrumental). In that case, if you draw a negative conclusion, I'd say that you need to look at the bigger picture. It's moments like these that make life worth living for many people.

Stoicism is obviously of benefit if it reduces the problem, which it does in many cases. So it's not true in all cases that you don't "win" anything.

To repeat what I said earlier: We are not content, nor can we ever be, when life demands that we desire and want- sources of suffering. There is no way to escape it, even in principle. Thus, no practice of indifference will truly get rid of the Will/flux/becoming. — schopenhauer1

To say that we're not content is as warped as saying that we are content. It's misguided to make such sweeping statements. It's obvious that we're sometimes content and sometimes not. No amount of sophistry will change that fact.

It's true that we have desires, and that these desires can be, and at least sometimes are, the cause of suffering - both minor and major. But, at times, some of them are satisfied, and some of them we are not conscious of, and some of them don't bother us so much, so that at such times we are content. We do have some degree of control over how much our desires affect us, and we can use this to our advantage.

Also, the struggle to get to such a height of indifference in which one cannot be touched by pain is itself a painful program of self-denial. One can say self-denial is a form of pain, albeit to get to a "higher" one of the equanimity of a stoic sage. — schopenhauer1

It's a painful program of self-denial to deny that a state of contentedness is achievable, and that also involves a struggle, but with that program, if successful, the outcome is guaranteed to be entirely negative, and the struggle would not be worth it from the get go.

With stoicism, on the other hand, one can achieve positive results. So the struggle might pay off and turn out to have been worthwhile. But, even if not, isn't it better to have at least tried, rather than to have given up before having even attempted a resolution?

@The Great Whatever

I think it's possible for bad things to happen to you regardless of what your response is to that happening.

Very well, but what does this have to do with how one ought to respond when bad things happen? Spinoza who schopenhauer1 mentioned along with the stoics would agree that bad things can happen even to a sage sub specie durationis. But this doesn't change the fact that when bad things happen it is better to have a stoic response than any other as it limits the suffering experienced; furthermore, a stoic response is necessarily couched in a view sub specie aeternitatis: we can only bring ourselves to respond stoically because we understand and feel that we are eternal

I don't have much to say on this topic. It's been a while since I have seriously familiarized myself with Stoicism, but I remember the Roman Stoics, such as Marcus Aurelius and Seneca in particular, to be full of wisdom on how to wade through the travails of life. The Stoic metaphysic ought not to be maintained any longer, but Stoicism as a system of prudence I think still has practical application.

I forget the exact passages, but I have often mumbled to myself, as if they were a Buddhist mantra, some variation of the forceful insights Aurelius has on death, who, excepting Schopenhauer, has done more than any other philosopher to destroy the fear of death in me. Whenever I am caught up in a blaze of agitation, I force myself, as it were, to think of death and my own demise, and suddenly things are put in their right perspective and my agitation becalmed.

As for Stoicism's relation to pessimism, I would say they are perfectly compatible, though only the latter seriously understands the metaphysical significance of suffering, whereas the former merely provides helpful remedies for it.

Out of curiosity, which parts of Schopenhauer have alleviated your fear of death?

His chapter in the second volume (and also the longest in that volume) of the WWP called "On Death and Its Relationship to the Indestructibility of Our Inner Nature" is excellent and profound. Keen observations come thick and fast in that chapter, so it's hard to point out just one or a few that have alleviated my fear of death. I would highly recommend reading it.

I get that you have probably changed your position, — schopenhauer1

I have moderated my position. Yes, I remember that post I made a year ago...when I was very angsty and depressed. I am getting better now. And I can assure you I am not trolling.

Furthermore, I don't quite see the importance of understanding my position. Isn't it enough to read what I have posted in this thread without trying to piece together what my entire philosophy is? That's going beyond the scope of the thread. I have supplemented you with my thoughts on the topic (of pessimism vs stoicism), and whether or not this contradicts something I said over a year ago shouldn't really have any basis in the discussion.

I don't know if it is expectations and reality. Rather, it is just a feeling, the pain can range from as physical as a cut, or the less tangible but still real emotional pain. — schopenhauer1

"Just a feeling"? I do not understand. Feelings do not arise spontaneously and for no reason. Pain arises to notify the subject that they are in a potentially dangerous and harmful situation. And the emotional pain: what causes this? What perpetuates this feeling? Buddhism answers this by the doctrine of dependent origin: every dharma arises due to another dharma.

Someone who has his head in the sand will feel the disappointments more when the fissures break. — schopenhauer1

Sure, but they also live their life prior to their disappointment with hyperbolic glee. I don't endorse the path of ignorant optimism, but neither do I endorse the path of extreme precautionary pessimism. Both kill the human spirit. There must be a balance for the human to thrive. I agree with you that we shouldn't stick our heads in the sand, but neither should we dread the future. Prepare for the worst, expect the mediocre, but hope for the best.

Wrong, he is saying they are enjoying it. It is literary sophistry. My mind imagines his ideas attributed to a caricature of someone who did a lot of cocaine and thinking they are the king of the world. — schopenhauer1

Perhaps not enjoying as one would enjoy an ice cream sandwich, but rather relishing it because it gives them power. Nietzsche thought people were motivated by power. You offer a child the opportunity to be "virtuous," and the child will scratch their head, he said. But you offer them the chance to be stronger, fitter, sexier, and better than their friends and peers, and the child will immediately perk up. Nietzsche was appealing to what he felt was our intrinsic drive for power. I don't entirely agree with him; I think ultimately the race for power is a rat race that only perpetuates our suffering, but I do find his texts to be motivating for me to better myself as a person.

It cannot be defeated. Accepting it is no good either, because no one actually accepts it except in platitudes to make others feel better about it in places like philosophy forums. The less you try to deny it, the less you will feel the unrealistic expectation that you will mitigate it. Accepting it doesn't mean you won't feel it as much, contrary to what some Stoic-minded people will tell you they supposedly do. Rather, accept the fact that it happens, it might be part of being alive and human, and it is ok not to like. The compassion comes in the commiseration. "That sucks, man" is better than "I looketh in the direction of naught..and I feeleth no pain" (with face emotionless and head cocked slightly upwards towards the sky like some mimic of a statue of a Greek philosopher- arrogant and smug). — schopenhauer1

You are approaching this in the way a quarterback approaches the opponent: head on. Which doesn't really do much other than throw you right at it and leave you bruised and broken.

How you do know how other people experience? I see no argument of yours against Stoicism except for "contrary to what they supposedly do."

The compassion comes in the commiseration. "That sucks, man" is better than "I looketh in the direction of naught..and I feeleth no pain" (with face emotionless and head cocked slightly upwards towards the sky like some mimic of a statue of a Greek philosopher- arrogant and smug). — schopenhauer1

This is a most excellent stereotypical straw man of the Stoic.

But of course you wouldn't like to be the noble Stoic, rather, the angsty, Rust Cohle-esque pessimist, with a dark, sullen face cast away from the sunlight by the sheer malevolence it has upon the being. No, better to have never been, and better to bitch and sulk about it than to take steps to overcome the problem. Being a Stoic is bland, being a pessimist is cool, hip, attention-grabbing and contrarian. Or am I just straw-manning your position?

Animals feel pain, animals have needs that can go unsatisfied. They don't know it though. It is not a concept. It may be a vague feeling, and I don't know what it is like to have cow pain, but certainly by empirical evidence they have some version of it. — schopenhauer1

I've been reading through the comments in this thread and felt like making one in response to this. I would say that you do know what it is like for the cow to feel pain, for any sentient animal is going to feel physical pain in generally the same way, owing to their neurological makeup. Consider also that thought often disappears in the moment of great pain. One operates on basic instincts and muscle memory when this occurs, not on any cold syllogisms of reason.