And what implications does your stance have here for the possibility of philosophically approaching the topic? — baker

Well mainly this - if this is what you consider to be a philosophical approach -

The idea is that doing things that one finds pleasurable (in the broadest sense of the word) cannot actually make one happy. Ie. that it's in the nature of doing worldly things that they cannot satisfy. (This is also the theme in Ecclesiastes, so it's not some "esoteric Eastern" notion.) — baker

- the idea that it 'cannot actually make one happy' is not really a defensible posture. It might have been closer to being trivially true if you phrased this like so - 'doing things that one finds pleasurable may not make one happy.' However, from what I've seen, it's a hell of a good start.

All this is still firmly in the realm of craving, tanha. The craving for sensual pleasures, the craving for becoming, and the craving for non-becoming.

(Your project is based on what is sometimes termed "the third-and-a-half noble truth: suffering is manageable".)
— baker

I’m not saying that suffering is ‘manageable’. You’re grasping for criticisms, here. Reducing suffering is not the same as avoiding it. — Possibility

"Suffering is manageable" is a phrase that I expect you to be familiar with, given the terminology you use.
You keep talking about "reducing" suffering, "minimizing" suffering, but not once have you advocated the complete cessation of suffering. Reducing and minimizing fall under "managing".

It’s easy enough to translate every action into craving. We cannot act without translating reason into affect, so I’m not going to deny this.

Actually, it looks more like there's quite a bit of terminology you didn't learn, even though you're using some of it from a certain field.

But you’re just avoiding what I’m actually referring to.

You're working on the premise that your worldview (which you probably don't consider a worldview but The Truth) is greater than mine, that it contextualizes, encompasses mine. That you can explain me, but that I cannot explain you.

And why do you think merely listening to music is not an example of collaboration?

In the same way that the beggar in a Mumbai street selling paper handkerchiefs cannot be meaningfully said to "collaborate with the world's economy".

But in moments when we are genuinely doing nothing, fully awake and alert (such as in meditation),

That's not "meditation", that's zoning out.
— baker

Fully awake and alert is not ‘zoning out’. Come on, Baker!

It's the "genuinely doing nothing" that gives you away.

Buddhism explores the possibility of a complete cessation of suffering - this is not the same as saying we all should follow that path to the end. I think that would be a misinterpretation.

You don't seem to understand just how egregious it is what you're doing. It's standard fare for New Agers, to be sure. You're basically telling me I should settle for cold pizza.

Indeed it is.. Existence is a burden, hence efforts to prevent it for others. Meanwhile, we just have to "deal with it" in the ways that we do. Once born, we are "stuck" in the position of making a choice at all, once we reach an age where we can self-consciously make these decisions. These are the problems Existentialists describe.. Absurdity, isolation, doing something but with no inherent reason other than taking on arbitrary reasons (e.g. it's my role, it's what is expected, it's what everyone else seems to do, etc.). This is often called "authenticity" in behavior. What choice to make when faced with life's dictates (the situatedness we are presented?). — schopenhauer1

Rather, dissatisfaction is more of a restless feeling that one must DO anything.. Get "caught up" in something. Thus like Schopenhauer's pendulum, survival and boredom kind of do describe a large part of what is going on with human motivations. — schopenhauer1

Early Buddhism distinguishes between two types of desire: tanha and chanda.
Tanha is the craving we're all familiar with; we tend to imagine it in the form of hunger, or sexual lust, then in the vile craving of the heroin addict seeking his next fix, or the greedy capitalist ammassing more and more wealth. But also comes in much more subtle and sophisticated forms, like insisting the walls of your dining room be painted in taupe.
Chanda is the desire to overcome this mess of craving and suffering.

It's instructive to make this conceptual difference, so as not to be unduly pessimistic.

Or maybe the widely held and tabooed assumption that life is for eating, drinking, and making merry, is not justified.
— baker
Why "tabooed"? It's not a forbidden subject. Most people believe they are here to enjoy all that and that this is the purpose of life! And it's not an "assumption"; it's a belief and way of life. — Alkis Piskas

It is tabooed to suggest that the assumption (that life is for eating, drinking, and making merry) is not justified.

Like you say, we usually take for granted and we are expected to take for granted that life is for eating, drinking, and making merry. We're not supposed to question this. We're supposed to go with this program. And if we ever feel dissatisfied by this program, then we are expected to conclude that the fault is with us, not the program.

- the idea that it 'cannot actually make one happy' is not really a defensible posture. It might have been closer to being trivially true if you phrased this like so - 'doing things that one finds pleasurable may not make one happy.' However, from what I've seen, it's a hell of a good start. — Tom Storm

Indeed, what I said earlier is not empirically defensible, on account that it would be unethical to perform experiments with which we could test the hypotheses necessary for this (as I noted earlier in the thread).

So we're left with whatever each person has in terms of personal insight and what they're willing to share with others.
While psychologists/psychiatrists play Procrustes.

That's like saying that the operation was successful, and who cares if the patient died! — baker

The operation is a choice the ‘patient’ makes freely, with an understanding of the risks. A failed operation is an opportunity to improve on the next attempt. Or not. And I’m not saying ‘who cares’ at all. I’m just saying that those who consider it worth the risk have often taken more into consideration than you might be aware of yourself in judging them.

A.k.a. bhava tanha. — baker

Notice I didn’t say a significant or noticeable difference. Making an incremental difference is not about anyone acknowledging your existence but the ‘self’ you construct to engage with the world. But this is only what I choose from my experience. I see it as an example of creatively re-arranging this supposedly ‘forced agenda’ you two keep harping on about as some ‘big bad’ we’re supposed to try and ‘win’ against. But it’s not about winning, it’s about understanding how the agenda is constructed - and then changing it. This has nothing to do with ‘craving’, but selecting freely from options that include suicide, asceticism and griping. But you will continue to insist that I must be craving something, because you seem unable (or unwilling) to understand it any other way.

"Just like you, we also don't actually know whether God exists or not, but we'll burn you in his name anyway!" — baker

Strawman

In the end it doesn’t matter if I think your perspective is wrong - it’s a valid perspective - but the fact that it requires you to reject valid information from others’ experiences indicates logical inaccuracies, or at least limitations.

While you reject valid information from others. Why don't you see that as a matter of logical inaccuracies or at least limitations on your part? — baker

Oh, I’m aware there are inaccuracies in my perspective - I encounter them every day. I’d ask you to point them out, but you’d have to imagine a possible reference point beyond both our value structures to do this. At this stage you’re simply explaining to me how my perspective differs from yours. But I already realise that. What I’ve been trying to articulate (obviously unsuccessfully) is the possibility that we’re both approaching the same truth from different positions of perceived value structure. I’m exploring the possibility that we could both be correct and incorrect to some extent, and using this interaction to improve the accuracy of my own position (and potentially yours, but you don’t seem willing to even consider that).

While you reduce whatever I (or some other posters) say in such a way that you can dismiss it.
Talk about ignorance and exclusion! — baker

What have I dismissed? Certainly not pessimism, or antinatalism, or suicide, or even the apparent force of some fuzzy agenda. I’m not applying reductionism to what you’re saying - quite the opposite. It is interesting how small or insignificant something appears when viewed from a broader vantage point. You can call this ‘reducing’ if it makes you feel better, but I think you’ll find that all your concepts and ideas remain intact.

Both the individual and this worldview are five-dimensional conceptualisations that vary in relation to each other - and you know that your conceptual structures are far from identical to schopenhauer1’s, even if an evaluative relation reduces to the same side of the binary. But you’re not meant to look at the concepts, just trust that the word is the same, so it must represent the same consolidation of value.

Really, I do that? Thank heavens I have you to tell me that! — baker

Um... what is it that I’m apparently saying you do here?

It is tabooed to suggest that the assumption (that life is for eating, drinking, and making merry) is not justified. — baker

Let me get that straight. Because the negation and the justification part ("not justified") somewhat perplexes me. Do you mean that we should absolutely believe that life is for eating, drinking, and making merry without questioning it? And that not believing that is forbidden?
If it's something like that, it reminds of "Have faith and doubt not", which of course is related to God and what the Christan religion teaches. So, is this "eating and drinking" belief about life a kind of new religion? Because taboos refer mainly to religion and by extension to social customs.
Well, I can't imagine even the hardcore "materislists" claiming such a thing. And if they indeed are, they would certainly not talk about taboos! :smile:

Like you say, we usually take for granted and we are expected to take for granted that life is for eating, drinking, and making merry. — baker

I didn't say that. I said "Most people believe they are here to enjoy all that and that this is the purpose of life!". It's quite different. People don't assume or take for granted any truth here. People are not taught in their families or at school that life is for eating, drinking, and making merry, and believe it without questioning it. People arrive at that conclusion based on their personal experience of and thoughts about life, which then of course they naturally believe.

So, in my opinion, nothing is taken for granted nor is tabooed.

You keep talking about "reducing" suffering, "minimizing" suffering, but not once have you advocated the complete cessation of suffering. Reducing and minimizing fall under "managing". — baker

There’s no need for me to advocate the complete cessation of suffering - it stands to reason, all on its own. It is only for me to understand what that entails in as broad a sense as I can imagine, and then relate with the world according to the logic, quality and energy of this possibility. The reality is that I cannot effect a complete cessation of suffering as an individual, nor will any moralistic judgements here be of much use except to advocate suffering for those who inflict suffering on others. But what I can do is ‘manage’ all of my relations with the world - by increasing awareness, connection and collaboration, to counteract the ignorance, isolation and exclusion that brings suffering.

Actually, it looks more like there's quite a bit of terminology you didn't learn, even though you're using some of it from a certain field. — baker

Well, you could help, instead of just judging. I am still here to learn.

You're working on the premise that your worldview (which you probably don't consider a worldview but The Truth) is greater than mine, that it contextualizes, encompasses mine. That you can explain me, but that I cannot explain you. — baker

No, I’m working on articulating a possible position that encompasses yours as well as mine. You could collaborate with me, but you don’t seem interested. You keep trying to consolidate your position.

And why do you think merely listening to music is not an example of collaboration? - Possibility

In the same way that the beggar in a Mumbai street selling paper handkerchiefs cannot be meaningfully said to "collaborate with the world's economy". — baker

Actually, your Mumbai street beggar CAN be meaningfully said to ‘collaborate with the world’s economy’ - it’s just not significant enough to have value in your system.

Listening to music is a one-way connection to the world. The music is unaltered by our interaction with it - not even in the smallest, most insignificant way.

It's the "genuinely doing nothing" that gives you away. — baker

Oh, no! Am I not using the precise terminology again?

Buddhism explores the possibility of a complete cessation of suffering - this is not the same as saying we all should follow that path to the end. I think that would be a misinterpretation.

You don't seem to understand just how egregious it is what you're doing. It's standard fare for New Agers, to be sure. You're basically telling me I should settle for cold pizza. — baker

I’m not saying you should do anything, and neither is Buddhism. People will follow the path towards the cessation of suffering only as far as they perceive themselves willing and capable - regardless of what anyone says they should do. According to Buddhism, that’s as much as we can expect of others. What we can expect of ourselves is another story.

Early Buddhism distinguishes between two types of desire: tanha and chanda.
Tanha is the craving we're all familiar with; we tend to imagine it in the form of hunger, or sexual lust, then in the vile craving of the heroin addict seeking his next fix, or the greedy capitalist ammassing more and more wealth. But also comes in much more subtle and sophisticated forms, like insisting the walls of your dining room be painted in taupe.
Chanda is the desire to overcome this mess of craving and suffering.

It's instructive to make this conceptual difference, so as not to be unduly pessimistic. — baker

Fair enough, and I think Schopenhauer would have a similar view. One point I am trying to make, that you criticized (it seemed) by saying I was overemphasizing, is that we are ALREADY put in a position that we will have those two types of craving AT ALL. This is my ethical stance against procreation, but also informs my overall pessimism. The fact that we are already PUT in a stance to HAVE to move forward with burdens, overcoming burdens, overcoming the burden of all burdens (chanda, let's say), the burden of having to look at things in a more Zen-like way.. The burden of not "getting" the Zen-like thing.. The do WITHOUT doing.. action WITHOUT action, etc. etc. or whatever Eastern principle you can think of that I (or anyone) am just not GETTING!! It's all part of a STANCE one HAS to take in the FIRST PLACE because one is ALREADY in the situation to begin with. And this, you may call "unduly pessimistic" but it is the reality, and a reality that cannot be contested, as even the very act of contesting proves the point!

So I brought up the idea of gaslighting with @Possibility. In a way, Buddhist (and other Eastern religions) are doing the same thing as what (it seems if I can understand her jargon) she is doing. That is to say, it tries to make the suffering inwards (it is YOU who must change your view or right way of thinking to overcome suffering). Possibility does it a little differently.. She says instead, "In order to reduce suffering you must X, Y, Z (connect/collaborate/aware)". So she oddly collapses the individual perspective in some web-like fashion as to try to negate it.. But the SELF is persistent because of its basic reality as phenomenon. Being part of an almighty "Steamrolling Collaboration" principle does not make the sufferings of being a SELF/individual go away. All the problems remain, and these exercises in restating pretty conventional behaviors (working with other people and things to construct stuff etc.) in poetic terms. But just rephrasing things in more flowery terms doesn't get at the problems.

The Buddhist model is more like, "You are not a real 'self', but a constructed reality that can change that construct through mindfulness practices.. Thus, in reality the world 'out there' is just your construction that you can deconstruct and overcome suffering through this deconstruction".. This again is just poetic license to me. It doesn't actually get at or overcome the problems. Here are some reasons:

1) First off, I don't think the metaphysics is true. I DON'T think that the world is SIMPLY a construction. Rather, I think that there are SOME necessities (i.e. situatedness) of reality that one CAN NEVER change. These processes are the reasons we have desires and wants in the the first place. They are basically originated from evolutionary means, and what it means to be an animal in a physical environment.. (hunger, boredom, language, working together to accomplish goals, and the self-awareness).. it's all part of a sort of necessity of what it means to be "born" at all. I think it is a long con game to pretend that, "No we are not born, we only THINK we are born".. I think Descartes pretty much took care of that kind of thinking. Buddhism INSISTS there is no THERE there but there is a THERE. If there wasn't you wouldn't need things like Chanda or Buddhism at all! It's a pseudo-problem, really. But you can always gaslight and say, "No no, that is just what you would say because you are too deluded or you don't have the right understanding". All our actions, INCLUDING the move towards Buddhism itself, says otherwise.. That there is a THERE there, trying to alleviate. I certainly agree with Buddhism on its conclusions (mainly the idea of dissatisfaction), but perhaps not its metaphysics, of the No Self or the No There there. The very fact that we are ALREADY in a place that moves towards trying to understand the self as not a self, means there is a THERE there we are trying to get away from..

2) Second, I notice that Buddhism is basically about the Middle Way.. This allows for things like having families, working tirelessly at your job, or whatever. Why is that? Well, you can say that you can do any activity without actually DOING it.. You can do it in a more Zen-like fashion...But to me that is like Buddhism-lite.. If I was a business owner or wanted society to run a certain way, I would LOVE for my citizens to take on this mindset.. They can pretend to Zombie out whilst doing my bidding... I don't even have to manipulate them with rewards! So it just becomes an exercise in trying to DEAL with situations MORE EASILY.. and thus just becomes a self-help tool..

But then you will say, "No No, that is Western appropriation of deeper ideas for the sake of modern world"... Fine, but we still have the problem of the world being ALREADY there with its problems to overcome.. Survival, dissatisfaction, etc.. It can never get past this factuality of things, no matter how hard it poetically alludes this very fact through poetic ideas of No THERE there..

Thus, my answer is griping. I know that sounds oddly pedestrian, but it is more than just complaining.. It is the communal realization of our predicament.. It is Sisyphus realizing itself by discussing it with other Sisyphuses and holding our feet to the fire.. Instead of blowing smoke up metaphorical asses with poetic No THERE there or the Ubermensch/Eternal Return or even Sisyphus happy, we realize the situation for what it is, a FORCED situation. There is an agenda of life and society and we were FORCED to deal with it.. Recognize the injustice FIRST and then proceed. Once the injustice is recognized, start realizing what this means.. Existence becomes a POLITICAL problem of being forced into an agenda at all to begin with. We solve it through concerted efforts of antinatalism and recognizing that though once born we must work together in capacities as we do to survive, it was regrettable we were forced into this situation of following the agenda and suffering at all.

To sum it up:

Buddhism: Seek within yourself to try to overcome suffering..

My view: The suffering will ALWAYS be there. There is a factuality that Buddhism tries to overstep that it just cannot and that this factuality presents a very THERE there and a very real REALITY based on evolutionary principles that originated self-reflective creatures as ourselves. With our self-awareness, we can recognize the situation we were forced into and the suffering entailed with it.. We can communally console each other, be empathetic that we are stuck in this situation at all in the first place, gripe as much as we can about our existential situation, and not force others into this situation.

The common response might be, "But no Schopy... that is not CONSTRUCTIVE!".. This already assumes the stance of the AGENDA. It assumes we MUST be doing something to produce X!! We must have a GOAL so we can PRODUCE something.. ACHIEVE something.. Noo.. that is simply taking on the stance of the agenda to reinforce it. In a way @Possibility is positing the ultimate "Follow the Agenda" scheme with her Collaboration jargon.. The Agenda MUST have its way, and to be fulfilled, one MUST follow the dictates of the agenda.. In that fashion, Schopenhauer is right.. We NEED goals to get wrapped up in.. Flow states to zone-out in, things like this.. Because we are dissatisfied creatures that cannot just BE. BEING itself would be all that was needed if there wasn't this inherent dissatisfaction. THUS, if we gripe.. we must write a book that is an end result of the project.. If we gripe, we must gripe so we can get into a flow-state.. The agenda is thus reinforced.. See.. it isn't THAT BAD.. We have CONSOLATIONS of flow-states and achievements to tide you over! And thus doing you contribute to the OVERALL agenda..

Why do I use the word AGENDA? Because it is the socio-cultural-physical reality of the ALREADY existing that one is thrown into. One can never have their own version of how things should be. One is always forced into the realities of the survival dissatisfaction operation that we are born into and MUST deal and take a stance towards in the first place. We are forced into situations of DEALING with. This is part of the factuality of being born at all. It cannot be overcome through X practices. The very fact that one is trying to overcome it (e.g. chanda) is part of the problem in the first place. I recommend we see the tragedy for what it is. Do not create Dealing with situations in the first place for people. It's just one thing, and another, and another.. Whether physical ailments, small pains, large harms, survival related activities, or the general dissatisfaction behind much of what we do.

Why should I try to understand my oppressor? Isn’t it enough that I hate being forced to do this or that? Can’t I just be dissatisfied with being born into a life of slavery, and gripe about it? Why must I overcome this forced situation? This oppression will always be there - it’s regrettable, but that’s the reality.

We can communally console each other, be empathetic that we are stuck in this situation at all in the first place, gripe as much as we can about our existential situation, and not force others into this situation. — schopenhauer1

As an analogy, what if this was the mindset of every person born into actual slavery? How do you think slavery was abolished? Not just by griping. It was the efforts of people focused on the possibility of a complete cessation of slavery, despite the reality of their experience. And they developed an understanding of their oppressors, increasing awareness, connection and collaboration with this so-called forced agenda, until it no longer appeared to be ‘forced’, but was a result of ignorance, isolation and exclusion.

Why do I use the word AGENDA? Because it is the socio-cultural-physical reality of the ALREADY existing that one is thrown into. One can never have their own version of how things should be. One is always forced into the realities of the survival dissatisfaction operation that we are born into and MUST deal and take a stance towards in the first place. We are forced into situations of DEALING with. This is part of the factuality of being born at all. It cannot be overcome through X practices. The very fact that one is trying to overcome it (e.g. chanda) is part of the problem in the first place. I recommend we see the tragedy for what it is. Do not create Dealing with situations in the first place for people. It's just one thing, and another, and another.. Whether physical ailments, small pains, large harms, survival related activities, or the general dissatisfaction behind much of what we do. — schopenhauer1

But you DO have your own version of how things SHOULD be - hence your dissatisfaction with how things ARE. You’re just unable to construct it because it has no logical relation to reality, and you’re not prepared to acknowledge that your concept of ‘individual’ value lacks any logical structure.

FWIW, I don’t consider chanda to be ‘overcoming’ suffering, per se. It refers to intention - a desire to interact; to increase awareness, connection and collaboration with this potential for suffering. Tanha, on the other hand, is a desire to ignore, isolate or exclude (ie. rebel) against the potential for suffering. Neither are inherently good nor bad in themselves, until we relate these structures of affect to a particular manifestation of BEING.

An idea proposed by Buddhism is our potential to transform tanha into chanda - without asserting that we should. It does seem to me a logically effective potential. This is not an outright rejection of tanha, though. Because without tanha, chanda is beyond us. Although without chanda, tanha will destroy all of existence.

Sorry if I missed your earlier posts - I didn’t get any notifications from them, for some reason. There’s a lot there and my time is limited, so if you don’t mind I’ll address your more recent posts to keep the discussion moving forward, but if you’d like me to revisit something in particular, let me know.

Possibility does it a little differently.. She says instead, "In order to reduce suffering you must X, Y, Z (connect/collaborate/aware)". So she oddly collapses the individual perspective in some web-like fashion as to try to negate it.. But the SELF is persistent because of its basic reality as phenomenon. Being part of an almighty "Steamrolling Collaboration" principle does not make the sufferings of being a SELF/individual go away. All the problems remain, and these exercises in restating pretty conventional behaviors (working with other people and things to construct stuff etc.) in poetic terms. But just rephrasing things in more flowery terms doesn't get at the problems. — schopenhauer1

Once again, I am NOT saying that you MUST. I’m saying that the alternative (ignorance/isolation/exclusion) is ultimately less effective in reducing suffering, IF reducing or eliminating suffering is genuinely what you want. The individual perspective has MORE structure in reality than this symbolic value you’re making it out to be. I’m not negating it, but rather describing it in context. The SELF is the continuous potential construct of a variable individual perspective. It has an ongoing relation to suffering as affect, but this relation is four-dimensional, not binary. And any reduction of this relation ignores the variable logical structure by which an individual determines and initiates action.

Collaboration is not a ‘flowery’ term. It refers to the particular quality of a logical relation in any aspect of reality. It’s not just about human behaviour at all, but it’s difficult to see this from your narrow perspective. A reductionist description of a symbolic force acting upon or being resisted by a symbolic value is completely oblivious to any complexity in the relation. This is not reality.

Once again, I am NOT saying that you MUST. I’m saying that the alternative (ignorance/isolation/exclusion) is ultimately less effective in reducing suffering, IF reducing or eliminating suffering is genuinely what you want. The individual perspective has MORE structure in reality than this symbolic value you’re making it out to be. I’m not negating it, but rather describing it in context. The SELF is the continuous potential construct of a variable individual perspective. It has an ongoing relation to suffering as affect, but this relation is four-dimensional, not binary. And any reduction of this relation ignores the variable logical structure by which an individual determines and initiates action. — Possibility

Why do you speak in such abstractions? WHAT is the "variable logical structure".. and same here:

A reductionist description of a symbolic force acting upon or being resisted by a symbolic value is completely oblivious to any complexity in the relation. This is not reality. — Possibility

WHAT do you mean by symbolic value is oblivious to any complexity in the relation? Can you just speak in ordinary language speak? Do you just mean that life is more than suffering? Well, my point isn't exactly that. It is that there is an inherent dissatisfaction where our being is oriented to take any action because of this dissatisfaction. I call this a kind of "inherent suffering". This is in contrast to what I deem as "contingent suffering" which is apart from just the inherent suffering, there are many harms that befall us that vary to individual based on circumstances of cause/effect and environment.

@Possibility
It's like this... If I set up a society.. and set it up to my standards, how I want it, but not the way you would set it up if you were to be a self-reflective adult.. and I gave you some hobbies to pursue or people you can freely try to form relationships with as a consolation.. But it is still setup in MY way of doing things in this society.. including the hobbies and the ways in which we form relationships.. all spokes that go back to my hub that I created for you.. And you (by default of this existence) can NEVER have a say in it.. That is more what is going on.. Now I can say to you, "Hey, don't be so sad.. you can COLLABORATE in my world that I created (not the way you would set it up, mind you, but MY world), and that will make things better".. well that injustice is still there. it is not a consolation and doesn't solve the problem.

As I have stated many times, there is a POLITICAL AGENDA that the parent has., that THIS WORLD is somehow setup in a way that other people should have to go through its "gauntlet" and as you say, COLLABORATE in it.. But this isn't the way an adult-version of that child might have set it up if they had a choice... It was a forced outcome.. so what to do? Get the pitchforks and symbolically kill the rebel (get them to FOLLOW THE AGENDA and COLLABORATE).. maybe force them into some kind of therapy? I don't know, hey how about hey just go commit suicide and leave well enough alone?? That's where I'm getting at.. No amount of flowery language about universal collaboration to reduce suffering gets rid of this.. You can try to discount the "SELF" so you can gaslight and keep saying it's YOU who are not complying good enough..but this actually reiterates what I am saying by being an exemplar.. So keep doing it, so I can be right :D.

IF reducing or eliminating suffering is genuinely what you want. — Possibility

Reducing suffering and eliminating suffering are two categorically different things.



I'll get back to this thread in the next few days, provided the country I live in will still exist.

Ukraine?

Why do you speak in such abstractions? WHAT is the "variable logical structure" — schopenhauer1

Probably because your language is so affected, and I’m trying to get you to see past that.

A reductionist description of a symbolic force acting upon or being resisted by a symbolic value is completely oblivious to any complexity in the relation. This is not reality.
— Possibility

WHAT do you mean by symbolic value is oblivious to any complexity in the relation? Can you just speak in ordinary language speak? Do you just mean that life is more than suffering? Well, my point isn't exactly that. It is that there is an inherent dissatisfaction where our being is oriented to take any action because of this dissatisfaction. I call this a kind of "inherent suffering". This is in contrast to what I deem as "contingent suffering" which is apart from just the inherent suffering, there are many harms that befall us that vary to individual based on circumstances of cause/effect and environment. — schopenhauer1

It’s your claim that this dissatisfaction is inherent that I disagree with. Suffering - what we consider to be experiences of pain, humiliation and loss - these are inherent, sure. But what we term ‘suffering’ is inherent at EVERY level of existence. It is an awareness of variability, and the allocation of energy needed to maintain that awareness. So what makes humans so special, that we shouldn’t have this? That we should exist at some level that precludes us from the logical structure of existence? This is what I mean by ‘symbolic value’ - the idea that our perceived value has no relation to our existence. Like a mathematical symbol.

Probably because your language is so affected, and I’m trying to get you to see past that. — Possibility

That's STILL not an answer! That is like if someone asked.. "What is General Tsao's Chicken?" and I just said, "Well, you wouldn't know because you don't eat anything but burgers." That is just unhelpful if they legitimately asked in good faith.

That we should exist at some level that precludes us from the logical structure of existence? This is what I mean by ‘symbolic value’ - the idea that our perceived value has no relation to our existence. Like a mathematical symbol. — Possibility

Um, still don't get you. In fact, this just reinforced my arguments of why bring more people into suffering if it is part of the equation, and always will be? See my last post for more!

It's like this... If I set up a society.. and set it up to my standards, how I want it, but not the way you would set it up if you were to be a self-reflective adult.. and I gave you some hobbies to pursue or people you can freely try to form relationships with as a consolation.. But it is still setup in MY way of doing things in this society.. including the hobbies and the ways in which we form relationships.. all spokes that go back to my hub that I created for you.. And you (by default of this existence) can NEVER have a say in it.. That is more what is going on.. Now I can say to you, "Hey, don't be so sad.. you can COLLABORATE in my world that I created (not the way you would set it up, mind you, but MY world), and that will make things better".. well that injustice is still there. it is not a consolation and doesn't solve the problem.

As I have stated many times, there is a POLITICAL AGENDA that the parent has., that THIS WORLD is somehow setup in a way that other people should have to go through its "gauntlet" and as you say, COLLABORATE in it.. But this isn't the way an adult-version of that child might have set it up if they had a choice... It was a forced outcome.. so what to do? Get the pitchforks and symbolically kill the rebel (get them to FOLLOW THE AGENDA and COLLABORATE).. maybe force them into some kind of therapy? I don't know, hey how about hey just go commit suicide and leave well enough alone?? That's where I'm getting at.. No amount of flowery language about universal collaboration to reduce suffering gets rid of this.. You can try to discount the "SELF" so you can gaslight and keep saying it's YOU who are not complying good enough..but this actually reiterates what I am saying by being an exemplar.. So keep doing it, so I can be right :D. — schopenhauer1

Ok, you still don’t understand what I mean by collaboration. Within a system, there are basically four ways individuals can ‘work together’:

Communication: The exchange of ideas and information.

Cooperation: Independent goals with agreements not to interfere with each other.

Coordination: Actions of individuals directed by a coordinator to achieve a common goal.

Collaboration: The process of shared creation; collectively creating something new that could not have been created by the individuals alone.

So what you’re talking about here is more like coordination - someone sets up the system, assigns everyone a role in it, and everyone works to achieve a pre-arranged, external common goal.

When I refer to open-ended collaboration, let’s just say that the process is the shared creation of a new system, a new ‘agenda’ that’s more satisfactory for all. There’s room in this collaboration for the pessimist, the rebel and the antinatalist, even if all you’re going to do is gripe. We need to understand where we ARE in order to structure a path beyond it. Evolution is driven by variation beyond consolidation.

Um, still don't get you. — schopenhauer1

You’re saying that an individual has value, but this perceived value is contingent upon an awareness of their existence - whether actual or potential - which entails suffering.
Value = existence = suffering.
No existence = no suffering = no value.

Probably because your language is so affected, and I’m trying to get you to see past that.
— Possibility

That's STILL not an answer! That is like if someone asked.. "What is General Tsao's Chicken?" and I just said, "Well, you wouldn't know because you don't eat anything but burgers." That is just unhelpful if they legitimately asked in good faith. — schopenhauer1

No - the question I was answering was ‘why is your language so abstract?’ That’s not a ‘what is’ question. A parallel question would be ‘Why are you talking about this General Tsao’s Chicken? What kind of burger even IS that?’

When I refer to open-ended collaboration, let’s just say that the process is the shared creation of a new system, a new ‘agenda’ that’s more satisfactory for all. There’s room in this collaboration for the pessimist, the rebel and the antinatalist, even if all you’re going to do is gripe. We need to understand where we ARE in order to structure a path beyond it. Evolution is driven by variation beyond consolidation. — Possibility

You are making several assumptions, that I can't let stand here:
1) The very fact that I am forced in this collaboration schema is what I am talking about. That is the "forced", in the "forced agenda". You cannot make a consolation by saying, "We accommodate for you", because the very fact we are forced into the collaboration scheme at all, is the very problem at hand! So if there is any collaboration, it would be how to collaborate to end the injustice of (the) forced agendas. So, my analogy still applies. Here is this world that YOU could not, by laws of nature, be able to setup yourself the way you wanted.. But then you are saying, COLLABORATE.. See that is YOUR (society's) agenda, not the individuals. Your arguments can never over step this, as you are trying so hard to do rhetorically here.

2) You are falling into the naturalistic fallacy. Who cares if evolution is driven by X. This is simply descriptive of evolution, and not WHAT humans MUST do. Once you cross from unthinking mechanisms to a self-reflective being, you cannot mix "evolution" for what humans should do without making category errors and making the naturalistic fallacy.

You’re saying that an individual has value, but this perceived value is contingent upon an awareness of their existence - whether actual or potential - which entails suffering.
Value = existence = suffering.
No existence = no suffering = no value. — Possibility

No, this inevitability logic you've made isn't the case. Rather, no person = no collateral damage. Period. Person = collateral damage. So collateral damage or no collateral damage? You pick collateral damage and then justify if by naturalistic fallacies and all sort of rhetorical summersaults.

No - the question I was answering was ‘why is your language so abstract?’ That’s not a ‘what is’ question. A parallel question would be ‘Why are you talking about this General Tsao’s Chicken? What kind of burger even IS that?’ — Possibility

No, it applies. I was trying to ask you to EXPLAIN your abstractions.. and then you seemed to dismiss me as stuck in some point of view so wouldn't understand. It seems like a dodge to not make it concrete. The more concrete it is, the more I can actually argue against it.. You probably don't want that. I don't know the motivation, other than you prefer self-referential language to collaborating :D.

I was trying to ask you to EXPLAIN your abstractions.. and then you seemed to dismiss me as stuck in some point of view so wouldn't understand. It seems like a dodge to not make it concrete. The more concrete it is, the more I can actually argue against it.. You probably don't want that. I don't know the motivation, other than you prefer self-referential language to collaborating :D. — schopenhauer1

Let me ask you - are YOU willing to collaborate with people who choose (for whatever reason) to procreate? You think that collaborate means ‘follow my agenda’, and you refuse to accept any other explanation on the grounds that it isn’t ‘concrete’. Collaboration in its fullest sense is NOT concrete. That is the whole point. It disregards any existing sense of ‘agenda’ in favour of the possibility of working together, because two groups pulling in opposite directions achieves nothing overall except more suffering.

Let me ask you - are YOU willing to collaborate with people who choose (for whatever reason) to procreate? You think that collaborate means ‘follow my agenda’ — Possibility

I do everyday.. It is literally what you have to do to survive unless you are a complete hermit in the woods.. but even then if you are a fully functioning adult, you had to interact as a child with a parent figure and society before you decided to become a hermit.. so your mind is already shaped thusly.

Collaboration in its fullest sense is NOT concrete. That is the whole point. It disregards any existing sense of ‘agenda’ in favour of the possibility of working together, because two groups pulling in opposite directions achieves nothing overall except more suffering. — Possibility

I am not against collaboration. It's almost a necessity for humans to live... In other words, before your long posts reifying it as a universal Principle par Excellance.. I knew of the importance of collaboration.. It doesn't have to be made into a universal metaphysical principle though as you are doing.. I've already stated that you are committing several fallacies but will reiterate:

1) Collaboration is something that PEOPLE/MINDS do NOT natural phenomena.

2) Just because collaboration might bring better results, doesn't prove anything about its morality.. At best it's a management tool, which obliquely, is what @baker was trying to say.. (reducing harm instead of getting rid of it completely)..

3) It is the naturalistic fallacy even if it WAS some sort of natural principle to think that it applies to self-reflective minds that can CHOOSE various options.. All it would be (going back to point 2) is a way for some hypothetical imperatives related to outcomes to be obtained.. and even so, one would have to value that which one is working towards. which itself would still beg the question of WHAT is to be obtained? There is ALWAYS an agenda here.. even if it is just to make more people who collaborate itself!

At the end of the day, being born at all, was a POLITICAL AGENDA because the someone else decided THIS LIFE is something ANOTHER PERSON must navigate through.. Collaboration is simply a way people get by to live.. And any common sense says, "Yes better to collaborate than isolate".. But that isn't solving the problem.. That is simply a better way to manage the AGENDA that has been chosen for us.. In fact, it by praising "collaboration" to this level, one is doubling down on the AGENDA.

It's akin to me creating a game for you and then me saying to you.. "Hey, if you double down on collaborating on the game I created for you, you at least won't suffer as much!"..You are essentially saying to buy into the agenda even more.. Poor consolation, my friend. You shouldn't have forced people to play the game in the first place. THAT was the immoral thing. Not the, "But you could collaborate!" hypothetical imperative.

Ukraine? — schopenhauer1

I'm not that close to where it's happening. But the government of the country I live in decided it would be a good idea to get "more actively involved" in the war, so ...

What I’ve been trying to articulate (obviously unsuccessfully) is the possibility that we’re both approaching the same truth from different positions of perceived value structure. I’m exploring the possibility that we could both be correct and incorrect to some extent, and using this interaction to improve the accuracy of my own position (and potentially yours, but you don’t seem willing to even consider that). — Possibility

I am quite certain that we are _not_ "approaching the same truth from different positions of perceived value structure".

Anything that is less than the complete cessation of suffering is not relevant to my theme. You seem to be saying that the complete cessation of suffering is not possible. On this account, I'm interested in seeing what you have to offer, hence why I'm still discussing this.

That's like saying that the operation was successful, and who cares if the patient died!
— baker

The operation is a choice the ‘patient’ makes freely, with an understanding of the risks. A failed operation is an opportunity to improve on the next attempt. Or not. And I’m not saying ‘who cares’ at all. I’m just saying that those who consider it worth the risk have often taken more into consideration than you might be aware of yourself in judging them. — Possibility

I used the theme of the successful operation but with a dead patient to comment on your lack of concern for the people involved, and instead your prefrence for some "bigger picture".

Notice I didn’t say a significant or noticeable difference. Making an incremental difference is not about anyone acknowledging your existence but the ‘self’ you construct to engage with the world. But this is only what I choose from my experience. I see it as an example of creatively re-arranging this supposedly ‘forced agenda’ you two keep harping on about as some ‘big bad’ we’re supposed to try and ‘win’ against. But it’s not about winning, it’s about understanding how the agenda is constructed - and then changing it.

"You two". Blegh.
Schopenhauer1 and I do not have the same stance, and I'm not "griping" about the agenda.

This has nothing to do with ‘craving’, but selecting freely from options that include suicide, asceticism and griping. But you will continue to insist that I must be craving something, because you seem unable (or unwilling) to understand it any other way.

It is craving, it's textbook craving. You bring in Buddhist references, so I assume this is the language we can use here.

"Just like you, we also don't actually know whether God exists or not, but we'll burn you in his name anyway!"
— baker

Strawman

No, a reflection of your supreme self-confidence.

While you reduce whatever I (or some other posters) say in such a way that you can dismiss it.
Talk about ignorance and exclusion!
— baker

What have I dismissed?

Buddhism, for one, despite making references to it and using its terminology.


I'm not a Buddhist; I'm familiar with the doctrine, though. When I see someone making egregious claims to the effect of "Early Buddhism is wrong", this catches my attention and I want to see what said person has to say, how they hold up in discussion. Whether they can offer something that is superior to what the Buddha of the suttas taught.

"You two". Blegh.
Schopenhauer1 and I do not have the same stance, and I'm not "griping" about the agenda. — baker

Thems fightin words :angry: :lol:

Fair enough, and I think Schopenhauer would have a similar view. One point I am trying to make, that you criticized (it seemed) by saying I was overemphasizing, is that we are ALREADY put in a position that we will have those two types of craving AT ALL. This is my ethical stance against procreation, but also informs my overall pessimism. The fact that we are already PUT in a stance to HAVE to move forward with burdens, overcoming burdens, overcoming the burden of all burdens (chanda, let's say), — schopenhauer1

I think that at the core of your predicament is that you're too passive, you wait for too long, wait for others to tell you things. This has many consequences, one of them being a general sense of being-thrown-in-at-the-deep-end.
There are aspects to your pessimism that are the product of inaction. Perhaps also products of laziness, indolence, convenience.

Specifically in reference to Buddhism: Ideally, in a Buddhist context, a person doesn't wait to be preached to, to be taught. The normal way to go about learning the doctrine is to study it yourself, or not bother with it at all. If one leaves oneself to the mercy of others, they will teach what they think one needs, which, however, might not be be relevant to one's needs, interests, and concerns.

It's all part of a STANCE one HAS to take in the FIRST PLACE because one is ALREADY in the situation to begin with.

There is one stance that I do expect you to take, and that is "What you do matters".

And this, you may call "unduly pessimistic" but it is the reality, and a reality that cannot be contested, as even the very act of contesting proves the point!

So?

So I brought up the idea of gaslighting with Possibility. In a way, Buddhist (and other Eastern religions) are doing the same thing as what (it seems if I can understand her jargon) she is doing.

It's important to note, though, that ideally, you wouldn't hear anything about Buddhism (or most other "Eastern religions") unless you made the effort yourself.
Instead, what has happened is that some Westerners have spread "Eastern religions" in the West, using the model of religion as they devised it based on Christianity. Unlike Christianity, "Eastern religions" generally do not proselytize, they are closed circles intended only for those with sufficient personal interest and who are willing and able to make the required effort.

That is to say, it tries to make the suffering inwards (it is YOU who must change your view or right way of thinking to overcome suffering).

And not having heard anything about Buddhism, you wouldn't be griping about this.

1) First off, I don't think the metaphysics is true. I DON'T think that the world is SIMPLY a construction. Rather, I think that there are SOME necessities (i.e. situatedness) of reality that one CAN NEVER change. These processes are the reasons we have desires and wants in the the first place. They are basically originated from evolutionary means, and what it means to be an animal in a physical environment.. (hunger, boredom, language, working together to accomplish goals, and the self-awareness).. it's all part of a sort of necessity of what it means to be "born" at all. I think it is a long con game to pretend that, "No we are not born, we only THINK we are born".. I think Descartes pretty much took care of that kind of thinking. Buddhism INSISTS there is no THERE there but there is a THERE. If there wasn't you wouldn't need things like Chanda or Buddhism at all! It's a pseudo-problem, really.
But you can always gaslight and say, "No no, that is just what you would say because you are too deluded or you don't have the right understanding".

I think the cure for all this is to actually study Buddhist doctrine, or else, drop all talk of it.

2) Second, I notice that Buddhism is basically about the Middle Way.. This allows for things like having families, working tirelessly at your job, or whatever.

Again, I advise to take up a serious study of Buddhist doctrine, in order to clarify all issues, or drop the whole thing altogether. Such a populistic level of understanding is a waste of time.

Thus, my answer is griping. I know that sounds oddly pedestrian, but it is more than just complaining.. It is the communal realization of our predicament..

Clearly, it's not all that communal, given that not everyone shares it.

In part, I agree with pessmism -- in the sense that this world is an endless round of suffering. Where the pessimism of your variety and I part ways is the "communal consolation" aspect and the passivity. Both griping and passivity should be beneath one's dignity, simply as a matter of principle. This doesn't equate to advocating optimism etc. It's just about common decency.

As an analogy, what if this was the mindset of every person born into actual slavery? How do you think slavery was abolished? Not just by griping. It was the efforts of people focused on the possibility of a complete cessation of slavery, despite the reality of their experience. And they developed an understanding of their oppressors, increasing awareness, connection and collaboration with this so-called forced agenda, until it no longer appeared to be ‘forced’, but was a result of ignorance, isolation and exclusion. — Possibility

You do realize that the implicit motivation for ending slavery wasn't some kind of enlightened "But blacks are people too!", but the capitalist motivation to produce an easily indentifiable category of workers that could be exploited even more easily than the white trash. Remember, owning slaves is rather expensive: the owner has to provide for them housing, food, vocational training, various other practical matters. By "freeing" the slaves, all those costs are now on their own shoulders.

There is one stance that I do expect you to take, and that is "What you do matters". — baker

But that you MUST do, has already been forced unto you at all.

So? — baker

The move from unenlightened to enlightened is what I am talking about.. This move itself is a burden that is put upon someone and I am against putting burdens onto others unnecessarily.

It's important to note, though, that ideally, you wouldn't hear anything about Buddhism (or most other "Eastern religions") unless you made the effort yourself.
Instead, what has happened is that some Westerners have spread "Eastern religions" in the West, using the model of religion as they devised it based on Christianity. Unlike Christianity, "Eastern religions" generally do not proselytize, they are closed circles intended only for those with sufficient personal interest and who are willing and able to make the required effort. — baker

Ok, doesn't really negate my point that one must do X to get out of Y.. This is a burden to overcome in the first place and this "first place" is where my problem lies.

I think the cure for all this is to actually study Buddhist doctrine, or else, drop all talk of it. — baker

Eh, I don't care for this "First rule of Fight Club is don't talk about Fight Club". Like if you want to discuss it fine.. You I believe were the one bringing up ideas of the no self and Buddhism etc.. So I am accommodating.. I couldn't give a shit really about ideas of the "no real self self" thing.. cause I don't believe it to have much relevance or truth.. We are constructed but only because evolutionarily, the we are animals that do this, not because of a metaphysical no "there" there principle or anything.

Clearly, it's not all that communal, given that not everyone shares it. — baker

Communal doesn't mean everyone has to believe it, just people who kind of "get it". Some people don't mind being forced into games. Some people don't mind that being born presents with it the collateral damage of suffering. I present why it is an injustice, I can't force others to see it or not. Some people thought slavery was a part of life.. It takes time for people to catch up sometimes to things that at first seem counterintuitive.. Procreation, despite good intentions is bad for the one who is procreated.

Both griping and passivity should be beneath one's dignity, simply as a matter of principle. — baker

That's just the middle-class perspective of the Managers telling their workers to "Stop fuckin complaining.. you are just a wimp.. You know a better way to handle this is to put more effort into the work..you fuckn degenerate" you know.. things like this.. Again, I take the stance of rebellion not compliance.. That is the harder path as is proven by thoughts such as "Complaining is beneath dignity".. fuck that, I'm COMPLAINING!!! The situation is FUCKED and there is NOTHING besides NOT SPREADING IT TO OTHERS one can do about it..

This doesn't equate to advocating optimism etc. It's just about common decency. — baker

What the fuck matters about common decency when one is thrown into a situation one would not ask for and given the option of suicide or comply as a way out? Sitting and trying to rid the self of self or any Buddhist thing you want to think of is just one coping mechanism.. It doesn't mean that the peaceful looking monk is any more dignified than the smug asshole statue of some Roman Stoic philosopher.. Both just coping mechanisms my man.

Collaboration in its fullest sense is NOT concrete. That is the whole point. It disregards any existing sense of ‘agenda’ in favour of the possibility of working together, because two groups pulling in opposite directions achieves nothing overall except more suffering.
— Possibility

I am not against collaboration. It's almost a necessity for humans to live... In other words, before your long posts reifying it as a universal Principle par Excellance.. I knew of the importance of collaboration.. It doesn't have to be made into a universal metaphysical principle though as you are doing.. — schopenhauer1

Your limited acceptance of collaboration reflects your general perspective. You are literally pulling in the opposite direction to those you label ‘pro-procreaters’ - that is NOT collaboration. For the record, I have never claimed that collaboration was THE universal principle - if it was to be considered a principle, it would stand in necessary relation to the principle of consolidation.

I’m not just talking about collaboration to survive individually, but to dismantle the agenda that says we should be trying to survive in the first place, and determine a more satisfying way to interact with the world, together. Part of that collaboration is to increase awareness of more efficient alternatives to individual procreation, survival-at-all-cost or simply avoiding boredom. Efficiency requires pooling individual resources of time, effort and attention to develop, but it ultimately reduces pain, humility and lack/loss - the main instances of suffering.

But it seems you’re not really interested in reducing or eliminating suffering on the whole - only your own awareness of it, as an individual par excellence.

1) Collaboration is something that PEOPLE/MINDS do NOT natural phenomena. — schopenhauer1

You are only describing collaboration as an intentional act. There is no intentionality required for collaboration: when an atom shares its electron with another, they collaborate. When a sperm fertilises an egg, they collaborate. Language structure may imply conscious intentionality, but it’s present in none of these events. The process of collaboration is a shift in dimensional awareness, whereby multiple entities are able to converge towards the possibility of a more complex level of consolidation, owing simply to the variability of their individual structures.

2) Just because collaboration might bring better results, doesn't prove anything about its morality.. At best it's a management tool, which obliquely, is what baker was trying to say.. (reducing harm instead of getting rid of it completely).. — schopenhauer1

I have not made any assertions regarding the supposed morality of collaboration. At most, I have only expressed my personal preference at this level. Morality assumes that an individual’s correct actions are all that’s required to solve the problem, but I don’t agree with this. Suffering cannot be eliminated single-handedly. What you’re trying to push for is an elimination of your perceived potential for harm, rather than eliminating harm or suffering itself.

3) It is the naturalistic fallacy even if it WAS some sort of natural principle to think that it applies to self-reflective minds that can CHOOSE various options.. All it would be (going back to point 2) is a way for some hypothetical imperatives related to outcomes to be obtained.. and even so, one would have to value that which one is working towards. which itself would still beg the question of WHAT is to be obtained? There is ALWAYS an agenda here.. even if it is just to make more people who collaborate itself! — schopenhauer1

I’ve never asserted collaboration as a principle or an imperative - ALWAYS as an option. As for what can be obtained: how about a more satisfactory agenda? Just because it doesn’t appear to have been achieved before, does not render it impossible.

I’m not just talking about collaboration to survive individually, but to dismantle the agenda that says we should be trying to survive in the first place, and determine a more satisfying way to interact with the world, together. — Possibility

I’ve never asserted collaboration as a principle or an imperative - ALWAYS as an option. As for what can be obtained: how about a more satisfactory agenda? Just because it doesn’t appear to have been achieved before, does not render it impossible. — Possibility

What is a more satisfactory agenda? Survival is necessary if you don't want to die. But I don't want to die, Survival always takes precedence unless slow suicide.. and so the agenda is followed. How can you ever get beyond that? Survival in a different way? The only thing tried like that is Communism, dictatorship/fascisms and that is just working for different masters. Communes always take place in a broader context of the bigger society (in the West's case a globalized industrialized economy). It's rearranging the chairs on the Titanic sort of thinking.

Besides which, as this whole thread is about, we are at root, always dissatisfied. Thus, changing economic arrangements doesn't negate the fact that BEING is never enough for us. In other words, it's too late for us, the already born. We can simply recognize the situation for what it is. Maybe we can be less of assholes to each other.. but we still have to be assholes to an extent because, as per your "wonderful notion" we need to "collaborate" in order so we don't die. But that means you have to do the shit that the agenda has for you to do.. The necessary things your social arrangement has provided for you to participate in....

THE AGENDA takes many political-cultural arrangements.. Tribal-Hunter-gatherer, pastoral, industrial post-modern, what have you... It doesn't matter.. The dissatisfied self-reflective human must survive yet is doomed to know it must do so, even if it doesn't like the various tasks necessary to do so.. But like a bird of prey.. our dissatisfied minds can't just be satisfied with subsisting, we must set goals that when reached only satisfy for a short time for yet more goals. And sure, pipe dreams of enlightened monks or what not aside, it's inescapable.

Just don't put more people in this inescapable/unjust situation in the first place.