In my opinion it's all a moral consequence, it's fair that the sufferers are suffering, either by way of skill or law, and in the case someone would be unfairly suffering, it is compensated on the spot, such as farm animals existing in dimensionality nearby their suffering form to avoid any suffering. Everything is morally accurate, if you deserved to suffer because you were defeated or broke a high law and got caught, you suffer. If you're suffering coincidentally, a miracle happens and you avoid all of it.

Whatever we do to keep ourselves happy, are we doing it to mitigate the suffering that is life? — Arnie

I don't think so. Sex and love bring so much joy and happiness, they are more than mitigating; they hugely contribute to a wonderful life. I suspect the vast majority of people live happy lives.

A few percent of people on the planet (in the hundreds of millions) don't have these things in their life, and live a sad and tortured existence. Maybe 1% (80 million) have lives of unbearable suffering.

From a logistical perspective, opportunity for suffering, particularly absence or loss of factors that are not "givens" in life such as wealth, companionship, and health that without are likely to incur at least a modest amount of distress, far outnumber the possibilities for contentedness. Without a robust, spiritually or emotionally satisfying underlying philosophy guiding one's thoughts and actions, that is. I think so at least. Pretty sure it can be proven mathematically on paper as well, provided someone had the time. In short, there's a million ways for something to go wrong but far fewer ways for something to go right or as intended or planned.

Empathy in this world is often likened as a curse or burdensome quality, despite lack of it being the main definitive tenet of clinical psychopathy/sociopathy.

The average person worries about his or her self and those immediately around them that offer tangible benefit or utility - or, conversely - would incur some detriment or drawback if they were to not be around or to view the person in a negative light. You wake up, eat, say hi to your kids or pets, feel validated and useful to others, earn a living, go home without incurring serious bodily injury, experience pleasure, and repeat. This is a good life. At least, all that can be reasonably expected to consider oneself "fortunate". All well and good. Now, for those who happen to care about others the same they do themselves or who refuse to remain ignorant of what tomorrow could very well hold, not just for themselves and the homeostasis of their own detached social sphere, but others, life becomes a bit more burdensome. In short, ignorance is bliss.

In a simple, if not crude way, the following can be often observed in most all societies past and present. A good woman takes on the burdens of her children. A good man takes on the burdens of his household. A good leader takes on the burdens of all. If, as a good person of any position, suffering is not a constant dynamic in the back or forefront of one's mind, a persistent, ominous fog on the horizon, and a mere stone's throw away, that person is either extremely lucky, extremely foolish, or both. I'd say so anyway.

Furthermore, one man's good time is another's punishment. Intellects may enjoy a half-day museum or scientific lecture. Others may prefer a firm beating in place of such an activity. Introverted and extroverted come to mind and seem to be a reliable archetype of mental identity, more so than not. Some people could be perfectly content reading a novel in a room for days on end without seeing as much as a soul. Others might become depressed or even unhinged. Some people love social gatherings, being around people, or being the center of attention, etc. Others abhor the idea and consider it a chore they wish to avoid at all cost. Neither are without their distinct advantages and drawbacks. Still, something I like to tell others, if not as a shameless defense of my own social disinclination: "If you can't make yourself happy, how can you (or others) expect for you to make others happy". Seems fair.

Does life have any potential to be anything beyond suffering, or is that too much of a pessimistic stance? I cannot see life as anything other than this, but it could also be something that we simply create out of life. — Arnie

Well to be alive is to be sensitive, and to be sensitive is to be vulnerable. That which lives must die. As I get older, I find myself subject more and more to aches and pains of knees and feet and stomach and so on.
There is certainly no shortage of suffering, if one sees the news, or spends a little time in a hospital, one can feel overwhelmed by it. But I think that suffering is pain compounded by rejection, the attempt to escape, and fear of continuation. Athletes speak of 'the pain barrier', as something to be overcome as a necessary step on the way to excellence. This attitude, that accepts pain, and moves towards and through it serves to greatly reduce suffering, by making pain a price one pays willingly for some other thing, which I will call "love".

You may have heard that love hurts, and that is true, because to love is to be sensitive and vulnerable, and to be so willingly. One is painstaking in the service of that which one loves; one takes the trouble and suffers for one's art - or one's wife, or one's sport, or in my case, my garden.

Whatever we do to keep ourselves happy, are we doing it to mitigate the suffering that is life? — Arnie

I have. I hope you do.

Does life have any potential to be anything beyond suffering, — Arnie

Nope. It's suffering, alright. All of it. Every last bit. Suffer, suffer suffer. Sufferin' succotash, as Sylvester the cat would say. In saecula saeculorum..

Or you might agree with Epictetus and conclude that we're not disturbed by things, but by the view we take of them, and act accordingly.

Does life have any potential to be anything beyond suffering, or is that too much of a pessimistic stance? — Arnie

No and Yes. All living organisms must be able to sense both positive and negative environmental impacts on Self. So, focusing solely on the negative is Pessimism, unbalanced by Optimism. Such an attitude only adds to the suffering, by ignoring the soothing. The Good is not beyond the Bad, but parallel to it. :smile:

Is life nothing more than suffering? — Arnie

No. Life seems to be suffering plus *temporarily better or worse conditions / interpretations* ... I think one sustainably reduces one's own suffering – one flourishes¹ – by acquiring habits of preventing or reducing the suffering (i.e. dysfunctions, miseries, agonies, fears) of others. Btw, "happiness" is just like a full belly, more a memory than a lasting experience; many miserable persns make themselves "happy"² momentarily via addictions or criminal / sadistic acts which inevitably only compound their miseries.

https://lisamarieblair.medium.com/eudaimonia-or-when-human-beings-flourish-b9c5943bad22 [1]
(i.e. beneficial growth and deveopment)

https://bigthink.com/thinking/how-to-measure-happiness-hedonia-vs-eudaimonia/ [2]
(i.e. merely momentary comfort)

Does life have any potential to be anything beyond suffering, or is that too much of a pessimistic stance? — Arnie

It would be a performative error to conclude that life doesn't have the potential to be anything beyond suffering. Yet, when one engages in such black and white thinking, there's bound to be so many cherries one can pick to justify the argument.

Does life have any potential to be anything beyond suffering, or is that too much of a pessimistic stance? — Arnie

It is well known that the 'four noble truths' of Buddhism begin with the observation or axiom that life is suffering - the Buddhist term is 'dukkha' which is difficult to translate, but which is usually represented as suffering or sorrowful (the word actually comes from a badly-fitted axle hole). In a forum post such as this it would probably be unwise to try and spell out all the remaining 'noble truths' in detail, save that they say that suffering has a cause and so also a solution or ending, which is the purpose of the Buddhist eightfold path.

Does life have any potential to be anything beyond suffering, or is that too much of a pessimistic stance? I cannot see life as anything other than this, but it could also be something that we simply create out of life. — Arnie

Many people have come to this conclusion. But 'suffering' wouldn't make sense if we didn't also experience contentment. So for me, whether life is predominately suffering or not, depends on experience, disposition and culture and upon how you understand the notion of suffering itself. My own life experience is too complex or multifaceted to be reduced to a single concept like this.

For me, life is not nothing more than suffering. There is plenty other than suffering. We are all the universe becoming aware. To get all poetic, that's magic! We are freakin' magic! Of course we suffer at times. It's yin/yang. If there is no bad, then there is no good. If there is no dark, then there is no light. If we did not feel pain, then we would not understand pleasure.

I realize people have different degrees of chemicals in them. Hormones, neurotransmitters, what have you. And people have very different experiences in their formative years. These things play a big role in how we feel. We can look at the same thing, and feel exactly opposite about it. But my first paragraph should be the lens through which we try to view our lives. Not the lens of "Everything is suffering." We probably can find a reason to think we are suffering at every moment, it we choose to. I can look at the aurora borealis, and call it suffering because it makes my floaters stand out. But we can choose the things we think to a much greater degree than many realize. I can direct my thoughts to the gorgeous display instead.

Does life have any potential to be anything beyond suffering, — Arnie

There's "good news" at the end.

If you indulge me to dissect "life" for humans into two parts: organic life, life proper; and the human experience, life constructed...if you go with that for 30 seconds, might I suggest the following answer briefly?

And note, these are my understanding of "things" from my very possibly heretical take on what I have gathered from voices, text, and coincidence. Im not an authority on any subject I address. Though I might present ideas as if I am regurgitating what is true to some source(s), I am not. I do not keep an academically responsible track of my sources, though like everyone, I am not unique from my sources, but at "best/worst", a unique by-product thereof.

Organic Life: not suffering. Its natural state is bliss; but within that context there is struggle. Life, because blissful, is driven to survive, and necessarily struggles to satisfy that drive. Inevitably there will be instances of fear, fatigue, hunger, pain, solitude (we naturally bond). But these feelings arise in our organic being without dissatisfaction, anxiety, angst, resentment, hatred, anger, strife, jealousy, misery. Life, already blissful, is not in perpetual becoming, not incessantly reaching and grasping, but rather, being, maintaining being. There is no "something." There is only being/doing-in-(successively)present-reaction-to-being.


Human experience: is suffering. But suffering is not real. Mind having displaced the drive to survive the present bliss, with desire to construct "something" and be heard (projection), has also displaced the natural bliss of being with incessant becoming. Because desire is necessary for becoming, dissatisfaction is necessary in order to perpetuate desire, which, in turn, perpetuates becoming, the manifesting of our projections. Desire cannot cease in Mind's world. And so we must suffer in order to desire the constructions we "pretend" are desired to end suffering; an ineluctable loop, which displaces natural fear, hunger, fatigue, with what we construct as anxiety, anguish, misery, all of it flawlessly perpetuating our becoming.

It might be an iota from impossible to stop becoming. If you were born into a world post prehistoric human animals, if you were born in History, you are programmed to displace being with becoming. Existentialism, thinks it has brought us methods of authentic being, but it only provides reasonable ways to navigate becoming. And though Zazen might appear as a means to bring one to the "silence" of being, and the extinguishment of the "I" of becoming, it doesn't last. You cannot delete, nor press "reset". The program automatically kicks back to the "Factory setting," and becoming continues on autonomously. Besides, you cannot "know" that being, you can only be "it," and the second you succeed at "returning" through Zazen to being, you desire to "know" that being, triggering you right back into the programmed becoming. The locus of inevitable suffering.

The"good news," it's OK. You are not that thing, the "I" (of) becoming. You are really that blissful being.

You wonder, is Life just suffering? No.

Human existence has suffering built in. It's how we grow. In a strange way of putting it, but it is no less a fact, without suffering, there would not be Shakespeare, the Eiffel Tower, Socrates, DaVinci, Icecream, Mozart, Billie Holiday, Charities, and Volunteer Firefighters, and as you know, we could fill this forum with the list of good which we get to experience, albeit constructed by us, and requiring, as one of the ingredients, perpetual suffering; good which we can choose to recognize, by simply incorporating it into each of our Narratives, as at least balancing the suffering. And we can choose to do so with gratitude.

Why? Because our being, that which matters, is bliss. And the becoming, well, we construct it, we can put effort into which projections surface upon our narratives.

It's not a bad deal, at all.

Whatever we do to keep ourselves happy, are we doing it to mitigate the suffering that is life? — Arnie

I am enjoying a banger protein shake right now without any reference in my mind of suffering.

@Wayfarer
I think Schopenhauer best encapsulates the inherent nature of suffering with this quote:

Human life must be some kind of mistake. The truth of this will be sufficiently obvious if we only remember that man is a compound of needs and necessities hard to satisfy; and that even when they are satisfied, all he obtains is a state of painlessness, where nothing remains to him but abandonment to ​boredom. This is direct proof that existence has no real value in itself; for what is boredom but the feeling of the emptiness of life? If life—the craving for which is the very essence of our being—were possessed of any positive intrinsic value, there would be no such thing as boredom at all: mere existence would satisfy us in itself, and we should want for nothing. But as it is, we take no delight in existence except when we are struggling for something; and then distance and difficulties to be overcome make our goal look as though it would satisfy us—an illusion which vanishes when we reach it; or else when we are occupied with some purely intellectual interest—when in reality we have stepped forth from life to look upon it from the outside, much after the manner of spectators at a play. And even sensual pleasure itself means nothing but a struggle and aspiration, ceasing the moment its aim is attained — Schopenhauer

He makes an interesting distinction between positive and negative properties. He argues that what we call "happiness" is a negative property, as it is really the pursuit of a desire for a change of state. Happiness is not what is intrinsic, but rather dissatisfaction is. What follows is a desire for change, which temporarily puts "relief" on the dissatisfaction, only for the ever-gushing willing nature of our existence to go back to another desire for a change of state. Boredom is seen as the ultimate revealer of a ground-state of dissatisfaction as he argues this to be the "proof" that we are not simply satisfied existing, but always rather dissatisfied. We are always struggling and looking for ways out of our dissatisfaction. We chase flow states, hedonistic ends, entertainment, chit-chatting, and all of it as a result of the dissatisfaction.

Much of life is maintenance, the upkeep of one's lifestyle, not even getting to the game of satisfaction-fulfilling.. Just maintaining the lifestyle to get there.

Then there are contingent externalities that puts people in a deficit. People with various diseases, or unfortunate situations happen to them, might put them at a perpetual deficit in their baseline of what they must contend with while overcoming the dissatisfaction.

Birth puts us on this dissatisfaction trajectory.

Schopenhauer — schopenhauer1

He has aged well/was farsighted. I'm inspired to read further. Honestly, my only brush with Schopenhauer has been in those large philosophy readers. Yet, I knew I was compelled by his thinking. I sense there is a (subtle) propaganda campaign against him?

Happiness is not what is intrinsic, but rather dissatisfaction is — schopenhauer1

Right, it negates (or settles) dissatisfaction the built in mechanism driving the desire! I like this. (Extremely sorry if I'm taking any liberties in my (potentially mis)interpretation of your text. But i sure hope Im not. Im grateful!)

Boredom is seen as the ultimate revealer of a ground-state of dissatisfaction as he argues this to be the "proof" that we are not simply satisfied existing, but always rather dissatisfied. — schopenhauer1

Yes! I really liked his description of boredom. A fresh lesson for me. And impactful. Thank you. I know I am out of bounds not having read Schopenhauer remotely enough to make assertions. But he's involving Boredom, not as a metaphysical state etc, but because the fact of its epidemic manifestation in human experience "reveals" the "real" "metaphysicsl" thing of it, the built in mechanism of dissatisfaction-->desire. Very insightful. I "believe" that.

not even getting to the game of satisfaction-fulfilling.. Just maintaining the lifestyle to get there. — schopenhauer1

Yes. That "appears" to be the only fact, and so, in the "world" where "appear" is "fact", how can we avoid suffering. And so on as you go on to say, since birth, uniquely for humans, life is suffering.

Thanks again for the opening into Schopenhauer.

I sense there is a (subtle) propaganda campaign against him? — ENOAH

Do you want to explain what you mean? Hereabouts in this forum, most people probably don't like his metaphysics (idealism, and in my opinion, a sort of neoplatonism whereby reality arises from Will being "objectified" into Forms which then get mediated by time, space, and causality). @Wayfarer tends to have more interest in his philosophy on this forum. If you want a good thread on his metaphysics, try following this thread:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/830498

Right, it negates (or settles) dissatisfaction the built in mechanism driving the desire! I like this. (Extremely sorry if I'm taking any liberties in my (potentially mis)interpretation of your text. But i sure hope Im not. Im grateful!) — ENOAH

That's about it. He thought that our will-to-live (manifestations of Will) as this "force" that simply desires but has no aim, and is sort of trapped in its own representation of itself, with the appearance of objects. In this template of time, space, and the illusion of objectification, Will tries to find satisfaction, but generally does not realize that it cannot, because its whole essence is dissatisfaction.

This is my attempt to distill the philosophy:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/830493

Yes! I really liked his description of boredom. A fresh lesson for me. And impactful. Thank you. I know I am out of bounds not having read Schopenhauer remotely enough to make assertions. But he's involving Boredom, not as a metaphysical state etc, but because the fact of its epidemic manifestation in human experience "reveals" the "real" "metaphysicsl" thing of it, the built in mechanism of dissatisfaction-->desire. Very insightful. I "believe" that. — ENOAH

Yes.. Boredom is an important marker as to what is the case. He elevates it from a passing emotion to THE emotion par excellance.. As it reveals the vanity of existence.. That in the end, we are not satisfied being. It is an endless onrush of satisfaction-fulfillment because we cannot just be.

what you mean? — schopenhauer1

I meant more generally. My exposure, as I said, were from those Histories (like Bertrand Russell, et. al) and Anthologies. My sense comes from those, and likely I'm reading in those "presentations" preamble, Histories, biographies, etc., an extremely subtle skepticism toward his interest in Eastern Religions (theirs, not mine) And its left a trace in my Schopenhauer file. Its not that reliable.

try following this thread: — schopenhauer1

Thank you

He elevates it from a passing emotion to THE emotion par excellance.. As it reveals the vanity of existence. — schopenhauer1

I find that compelling, if not metaphysically (and yet, there, is precisely where I do), then for certain aesthetically.

That in the end, we are not satisfied being. It is an endless onrush of satisfaction-fulfillment because cannot just be. — schopenhauer1

True, but, (though I may be misreading) for me, it's not so blue. I would uses as "hopeless" a hue, as Schopenhauer, if that was Schopenhauer, not me misreading a subtle melancholy into "because we cannot just be". Because that afterall is tge fact I accept.

Anyway, I accept wholeheartedly that human existence is an endless movement driven, as Schopenhauer brilliantly reduced down to its base code, by dissatisfaction.

But Im not so gloomy. One, I can work with that, I do anyway. Why fight it. Loosen the first person Narrator's grip on the endless pursuit; receive satisfaction (though fleeting) rather than pursuing it, And it will ease the tension of the dissatisfaction. And then, just carry on with management of boredom-->desire (Schopenhauer's implicit definition of the human condition, right?).

And Two, I'm alive (as in that's what I really am). And that by definition is the only "satisfaction" required. Satisfaction in being.

Again, Schopenhauer is an inspiration I'm eager to read that thread. Thanks again

I meant more generally. My exposure, as I said, were from those Histories (like Bertrand Russell, et. al) and Anthologies. My sense comes from those, and likely I'm reading in those "presentations" preamble, Histories, biographies, etc., an extremely subtle skepticism toward his interest in Eastern Religions (theirs, not mine) And its left a trace in my Schopenhauer file. Its not that reliable. — ENOAH

Yeah so basically the idealism aspect... whether Eastern or not, is pretty denounced by the materialism/naturalism of analytics like Russel et al. Also Schopenhauer was a system builder, and this is generally disliked in modern philosophy where problems are solved on a discrete basis.

True, but, (though I may be misreading) for me, it's not so blue. I would uses as "hopeless" a hue, as Schopenhauer, if that was Schopenhauer, not me misreading a subtle melancholy into "because we cannot just be". Because that afterall is tge fact I accept. — ENOAH

Yes, Schopenhauer was considered a "philosophical pessimist" because of his emphasis on suffering.

One, I can work with that, I do anyway. Why fight it. Loosen the first person Narrator's grip on the endless pursuit; receive satisfaction (though fleeting) rather than pursuing it, And it will ease the tension of the dissatisfaction. And then, just carry on with management of boredom-->desire (Schopenhauer's implicit definition of the human condition, right?). — ENOAH

I think Schopenhauer would answer that you cannot help but pursue it; it's not a choice.

And Two, I'm alive (as in that's what I really am). And that by definition is the only "satisfaction" required. Satisfaction in being. — ENOAH

Again, his "test" is that you cannot simply "be". Survival alone negates that point. But beyond that, your own inability to sit still in an empty room. No one is faulting you for that. In fact, it is quite impossible for fully functioning animals, to do so. The human animal must have its ends, or literally, nothing would get done. We are habituated for anticipation for what we must do next.

It's all instrumental. What is valuable becomes consumed and is in the end a temporary gap in the gushing forth of one's will.

People pretend as if you can extricate the objective existence from one's evaluation of it, but you cannot. It is always you situated in the world, not just the world. Believing that the world "is", and you are just there putting your spin on it, matters not, as you will never extricate the two.

Yes. There's also the passage which I've quoted to you and elsewhere on this forum:

In order to always have a secure compass in hand so as to find one's way in life, and to see life always in the correct light without going astray, nothing is more suitable than getting used to seeing the world as something like a penal colony. This view finds its...justification not only in my philosophy, but also in the wisdom of all times, namely, in Brahmanism, Buddhism, Empedocles, Pythagoras [...] Even in genuine and correctly understood Christianity, our existence is regarded as the result of a liability or a misstep. ... We will thus always keep our position in mind and regard every human, first and foremost, as a being that exists only on account of sinfulness, and who is life is an expiation of the offence committed through birth. Exactly this constitutes what Christianity calls the sinful nature of man. — Schopenhauer's Compass,Urs App

Notice from the SEP entry on Schopenhauer:

When the ascetic transcends human nature, the ascetic resolves the problem of evil: by removing the individuated and individuating human consciousness from the scene, the entire spatio-temporal situation within which daily violence occurs is removed.

In a way, then, the ascetic consciousness can be said symbolically to return Adam and Eve to Paradise, for it is the very quest for knowledge (i.e., the will to apply the principle of individuation to experience) that the ascetic overcomes. This amounts to a self-overcoming at the universal level, where not only physical desires are overcome, but where humanly-inherent epistemological dispositions are overcome as well.

So, important to register that while Schopenhauer recognises 'to live is to suffer', he also sees 'the end to suffering', albeit perhaps 'through a glass, darkly'.

I think Schopenhauer would answer that you cannot help but pursue it; it's not a choice. — schopenhauer1

I understand that, and, think he may be
right.

We are habituated for anticipation for what we must do next. — schopenhauer1

Interesting. Yah, makes sense. Explains the inability not to follow the chatter, even by [thinking you can/are] trying to employ only the Body in that [cessation of] pursuit.

Hmm. I don't want that to be the case. But c'est la vie.

It is always you situated in the world, not just the world. Believing that the world "is", and you are just there putting your spin on it, matters not, as you will never extricate the two. — schopenhauer1

A very important point I'll have to [re]consider.

I've been enriched. I know it sounds cheesy, but I can't but express my gratitude.

Notice from the SEP entry on Schopenhauer:

When the ascetic transcends human nature, the ascetic resolves the problem of evil: by removing the individuated and individuating human consciousness from the scene, the entire spatio-temporal situation within which daily violence occurs is removed.

In a way, then, the ascetic consciousness can be said symbolically to return Adam and Eve to Paradise, for it is the very quest for knowledge (i.e., the will to apply the principle of individuation to experience) that the ascetic overcomes. This amounts to a self-overcoming at the universal level, where not only physical desires are overcome, but where humanly-inherent epistemological dispositions are overcome as well.

So. important to register that while Schopenhauer recognises 'to live is to suffer', he also sees 'the end to suffering', albeit perhaps 'through a glass, darkly'. — Wayfarer

Yes, and of course, this will open up the conversation we had previously about what Schopenhauer meant in the idea that the ascetic "overcomes" and the notion of Will as noumena.

That we strive in the first place, is where I like to start. The hope of redemption is the part that is speculation.

I've been enriched. I know it sounds cheesy, but I can't but express my gratitude. — ENOAH

:up:

No.

That we strive in the first place, is where I like to start. The hope of redemption is the part that is speculation. — schopenhauer1

Yes I think I'd go along with that. I think Plato would recognise it as the initial stirrings of anamnesis.

Yeah, life is a bitch and then you die.

Oh, sorry. You were perhaps looking for something more uplifting, upbeat, and positive sounding?

Actually, I don't think life is all suffering. Some of it is suffering--more for some people, less for others--but life is also joy and festivity--not all the time for anybody, but once in a while for most people. Life is mostly the reasonably pleasant area mid-stroke of the pendulum's sweep between simply marvelous and fucking awful.

That's as cheery as I can manage. So spend as much time as you can living in the moderately pleasant middle zone.

:up:

Oh, sorry. You were perhaps looking for something more uplifting, upbeat, and positive sounding? — BC

No, why would I, if my original stance itself is that I perceive life as nothing more than suffering?

Thank you for your insight.

Thank you for this. I really appreciate the intricate details you went into in order to answer my question. I will be contemplating over your comment for the next few days and expand my viewpoints on certain aspects of life. Thank you!

Thank you. Feel free to respond/move on at your pace/discretion.