It seems to me that, given the above, Christianity's Gospel cannot be served up to the masses (as we are taught); salvation cannot be be reeled in like a fish on a hook; there is no learning how to fish for salvation, as it comes unbidden to the elect, in accordance with a mysterious divinity. If this is true, then Jesus came to earth to greet those already divinely chosen for the afterlife in heaven. — ucarr

I have several things I have contention with in your interpretation
1) Schopenhauer was absolutely an atheist, even if his metaphysics was a speculative Will. So when he discusses Christianity, everything is metaphor. If you look at what he said about Jesus more closely, you'll see he did not believe nor care about the actual Christian belief of a dead/resurrecting god, but rather only the metaphor of a being who REPRESENTS a "denial of the Will" in opposition to METAPHORICAL ADAM, who is "assertion of will". See the quote here:

Yet the origin of this sin is to be referred to the will of the sinner. This sinner was Adam, but we all existed in him; Adam became miserable, and in him we have all become miserable. Certainly the doctrine of original sin (assertion of the will) and of salvation (denial of the will) is the great truth which constitutes the essence of Christianity, while most of what remains is only the clothing of it, the husk or accessories. Therefore Jesus Christ ought always to be conceived in the universal, as the symbol or personification of the denial of the will to live, but never as an individual, whether according to his mythical history given in the Gospels, or according to the probably true history which lies at the foundation of this. — WWR Book 4

2) The "already divinely chosen", "group of elect" is not what I think Schopenhauer is going for in his notion of "grace", rather he is referring to the Protestant Christian notion that there is no contingency related to salvation (complete denial of the will to non-being). That is to say, "If I do this, then I salvation will happen". If this was the case, then cause-and-effect would be in effect and that already presupposes the operations of the will. Therefore and salvation-proper would take place by some non-causal capacity of the individual. This has always been there perhaps for some characters, to be realized, but one cannot tie it to a specific causal reason.

I see here that faith is a type of knowing, perhaps divine knowing. In our language, "knowing" is a verb, an action. Is there a divine knowing possible in the form of an existential reality that can be practiced within the natural world? — ucarr

No, this is just more about the non-causal type of salvation that is not contingent. The "knowing" would be something akin to a gnosis that one "reaches" (but again it's all very hard to describe being that "reaches" would indicate causality and thus explicitly not what he characterizes salvation).

What comes to mind as a possible alternative to non-existence is something akin to the virtual body of Jesus on earth. — ucarr

Well, he did talk about Jesus being a "spirt" of sorts, but again even this would be a metaphor to Schopenhauer, as he didn't care about the Christian mythos related to Jesus. It's simply the idea of salvation through a higher knowledge.

I wonder if the passage described here might better be characterized by some label other than "suicide." What about the idea of replacing "suicide" with "ascension"? Might Jesus' total surrender of his will to God have been the form of his ascension from the cave?

I've thought of ascension as a type of explosion that creates instead of destroys. In this context it might be the creative explosion of the will. With its explosion, the will merges into the Divinity. — ucarr

Yes perhaps, but then this is purely metaphorical. It would have to simply be instructive in what is happening to one's will. Remember, Schopenhauer's whole thesis is about "denial of the Will". That is to say, it's a negation. Thus things like "merge" and "creative explosion" would have to be in the negative meaning, it would have to be about the negation of one's will. It is thus so thoroughly denies (by some higher gnosis, I guess, given by grace), that one is like nothing, non-being. Again, very hard to describe in words, but we can get a sense.

[Schopenhauer]is referring to the Protestant Christian notion that there is no contingency related to salvation (complete denial of the will to non-being). That is to say, "If I do this, then I salvation will happen". If this was the case, then cause-and-effect would be in effect and that already presupposes the operations of the will. — schopenhauer1

I see that Schopenhauer's vision of salvation requires abstraction from causality.

...salvation-proper would take place by some non-causal capacity of the individual. This has always been there perhaps for some characters, to be realized, but one cannot tie it to a specific causal reason. — schopenhauer1

I'm struggling to see how this isn't another way of saying that, for some individuals -- the elect -- salvation happens through divine grace unwilled.* If this isn't what Schopenhauer envisions, then the logical structure in suggestion is a binary with grace on one side, and the opposite of grace, i.e., willful calculation towards salvation, on the other side.

*An example of grace unwilled would be a saint. Saints are born, not made, right?

The "knowing" would be something akin to a gnosis that one "reaches"... — schopenhauer1

Gnosis, being knowledge of spiritual mysteries, comes to the saint unbidden, doesn't it? I read somewhere in the bible that those pure of heart will see God. A pure heart comes to the saint unbidden, doesn't it?

The secular bent of my mind has me conjecturing the following: Schopenhauer has worked out a plan for abstracting oneself from causality and the willful manipulation thereof. This abstraction to pure isolation sets up a subsequent dissolution of the self into... what?

If dissolution of the self into non-existence is salvation, then the unborn are blessed, and the living are cursed. This doesn't sound right to my ear that's always heard life is holy, not that non-existence is
holy. When a transgressor receives the death penalty for commission of a heinous crime, dissolution into non-existence unbidden is salvation? The life of a saintly buddhist dovetails with the life of an unrepentant blackguard?

↪180 Proof
Leave me alone. Fuck off — schopenhauer1

Reply intelligently to this post

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/944417

and I (probably) will.

By "efilism", I mean action taking by you to move the human race towards extinction. I think most antinatalists realise that humans will not voluntarily stop having children, so its effectively the only strategy. Theres a number of ways it could be done, but the most effective would probably be to launch nukes to every country on earth. At the very least you'd probably save 10's of billions of people from coming into existance, and humanity would be set back so the population would remain low for probably thousands of years. This doesn't really apply to most people (seeing as it would require a will probably even greater than the suicide route). However, if one cares about others, the person with the will to commit suicide, should probably do this instead. It'd be pretty selfish to view the majority of humans as not understanding the suffering they are in, and yet decide to focus on your own salvation by suicide.

I agree with your argument though, I think any valuing of suffering above desire logically concludes in antinatalism. Although I see the flaw in the valuing of suffering as inherently bad, or not worth it to obtain desire.

Contra popular wisdom, social entanglements almost always lead to worse outcomes, despite the initial "highs" one gets from their initial engagement- in preventing the "lonely" feelings of the isolated individual. — schopenhauer1

I agree with the sentiment that relationships can and often do contain deeper hardships than the emotional highs they provide. However, I dont see any issue with this. I dont want a happy relationship, I want a deep and complex relationship which can provide me with a variety of experiences. I wouldnt want to live without my sadness, without my anger, without the progress that arises through the conflict, and the choices I make in order to experience even more.

I am an egoist, and a big part of my philosophy is that one should preserve and expand instances of their qualia. Purify the deepest and richest of ones experience, both the greatest highs and painful lows, and continue to search for even more purity. This can be as simple as building a collection of music you enjoy and purifing it over time with constant experimentation, whilst enjoying your current collection; or it can be as complex as a trip around the world to meet others and see different cultural customs and art. I believe that whilst all value derives from ones experience, that our experiences are too complex to simplfy them into the hedonistic principles. Afterall, at my core is not a dream of happiness, or a fear of pain, but an insatiable desire to satisy my ardent curiousity!

Eh, withdrawal can also be from what you describe your avocation/vocation which you pursue. If it brings you joy, cool. Suppose the code was deleted mistakenly, and all your hard work was wiped out? Suppose your boss/owner rejected your code as insufficient, inelegant, and trash? Suppose they rejected every attempt, even if you are convinced it is genius? Anyways, strife can be found anywhere, just as much as joy. Pursuits of joy are temporary. That's the point of Schopenhauer makes of goal-seeking, attachments, and all of it. — schopenhauer1

I have a general hatred for humanity, I see the vast majority of humans as being unintelligent, and even when they are intelligent they are so occupied by their emotion that they become irrational. I see how the emotion of disgust turns people in animals advocating death, and how this mechanism of reaction is so similar between people that it makes them look like machines. Im autistic, and I would easily identify with the label "misanthrope".

However, there exists people who I can enjoy hanging out with, and there are people who can actually understand the perspectives I hold and are willing to hear it. It doesnt matter if we have endless fights, I will always want a friend in a world that that rejects me. The mere knowledge of others existance can create a loneliness that dwarfs the benign issues found within relationships.

And yet, I do not wish for a world where I was ignorant of this. I am okay with holding onto suffering, because it means something to me. I dont want to fall into ignorant but happy compliance with the world, I want a gory and painful fight, and I want to come on top.

However, the ascetic perspective is more radical, challenging the common viewpoint. The ascetic views the world as a kind of addictive drug: the more you engage with it, the more entangled you become. The attachment grows, and it grips you more tightly. True liberation, from this perspective, comes from withdrawing and reducing engagement with what ensnares us. Thus, the usual wisdom that advocates social engagement becomes, paradoxically, like a drug- poisonous over time. — schopenhauer1

But can you also be addicted to the ascetic practices? You might have thought you are detaching and liberating yourself from the world, but you find yourself you are addicted and attached to yourself and all the ascetic practices which paradoxically supposed to free yourself from the world? You are still in the trapped space of the addiction. Just in different form of addiction.

First, I'd like to thank you for being Exhibit A for answering the OP question:
Withdrawal is the answer to most axiological problems concerning humans

I like to see the point demonstrated in real time.

Second, I don't engage/indulge/feed belligerent/hostile posters/trolls. Go troll someone else.

I'm struggling to see how this isn't another way of saying that, for some individuals -- the elect -- salvation happens through divine grace unwilled.* — ucarr

I guess we do agree on that point, as long as we have the same understanding of "grace unwilled" which I think you do now.

Gnosis, being knowledge of spiritual mysteries, comes to the saint unbidden, doesn't it? — ucarr

Yes

The secular bent of my mind has me conjecturing the following: Schopenhauer has worked out a plan for abstracting oneself from causality and the willful manipulation thereof. This abstraction to pure isolation sets up a subsequent dissolution of the self into... what?

If dissolution of the self into non-existence is salvation, then the unborn are blessed, and the living are cursed. This doesn't sound right to my ear that's always heard life is holy, not that non-existence is
holy. When a transgressor receives the death penalty for commission of a heinous crime, dissolution into non-existence unbidden is salvation? The life of a saintly buddhist dovetails with the life of an unrepentant blackguard? — ucarr

Well, Schopenhauer did believe birth was not good, so yes. He was a proto-antinatalist. However, since he wasn't a materialist but believed that Will needed to be denied, and this is only done through person becoming will-less, then only the ascetic saint, and not just any old death would do.

I myself am more materialist- or at least less believing in this notion of a unified Will... So I am being charitable myself here to Schopenhauer. Rather, I advocate antinatalism (no one should have children), and then for those already born, I don't see much way forward. I only have "practical" recommendations like "do not engage with others as it leads to more suffering". It just made me think of the other stuff one can do to minimize attachments and ultimately, unnecessary entanglements that "seem" good but actually may lead to simply more headache. That is to say, ascetics without the metaphysics perhaps.

...I advocate antinatalism (no one should have children), and then for those already born, I don't see much way forward. I only have "practical" recommendations like "do not engage with others as it leads to more suffering" — schopenhauer1

I'm wondering if antinatalism is an extreme form of pessimism. If so, then being born and surviving through a normal lifespan means submerging into a deepening negativity. This because maturation is accompanied by an increasing power of the will to design and execute chosen outcomes.

There's a resemblance between antinatalism and original sin; in both systems, life on earth is a slog through the poison blossoms of an unjustifiable sentience. Antinatalism is more extreme in its negative judgment of existence; sentience guided by will presents a journey of suffering but briefly relieved by interjections of joy. Death is the cure for unavoidable calamity, but only if approached by suicide somehow unwilled. In this system, birth resembles original sin. The living are punished unto ruination because they are born. Although this birth is unwilled no less than unwilled death, the former is punished while the latter is rewarded. There is no cosmic sentience authorizing and protecting the sanctity of life.

In the system of theism, the grace of saintly life is freely bestowed, with freedom of choice of the saints included. Curiously, the saints, progeny of the Deity, possess a power unpossessed by their creator: the power to sin.

Antinatalism imposes original sin whereas theism gives saints a choice between sin and sanctity.

Although saints can choose to damn themselves, the deity offers them an escape from damnation and return to sanctity through total allegiance to the savior.

Antinatalists experience salvation through eternal embrace of nihilism.

Why a human individual would choose antinatalism instead of theism is mysterious, unless one believes there is compulsion on the part of some individuals to pair antinatalism with atheism.

Either way, life on earth is rigged for insuperable misery until death. However, the theist, unlike the antinatalist, can triumph over death through belief grounded in a faith lying beyond knowledge.

Either way, life on earth is rigged for insuperable misery until death. However, the theist, unlike the antinatalist, can triumph over death through belief grounded in a faith lying beyond knowledge. — ucarr

I think that post is a nice summary of pessimism, as it plays out for the atheistic antinatalist and the theist (some forms at least). Just keep in mind, for Schopenhauer's conception, there are very few "manifestations of will" (individual people to you and me), who are able to "triumph over death through belief grounded in a faith lying beyond knowledge". Far far more people would be mired in the tragedy of suffering (assertion of will) that plays out from birth.

Antinatalism imposes original sin whereas theism gives saints a choice between sin and sanctity. — ucarr

I am not sure what you mean that antinatalism "imposes" original sin. Rather, antinatalism tries to prevent original sin (if we mean by this "birth" / the beginning of assertion of will for yet another hapless individual/manifestation/soul/person/ego/etc.etc.).

As one such antinatalist, I would propose that there can be communal catharsis, things I've proposed many times before and people have in various ways disagreed with because various attachments to work and relationships and modern living have made it seem like I am just not giving a balanced report. Inherent and contingent forms of suffering aren't taken seriously. And then, when something tragic happens, only then, maybe existential issues are entertained.

I only "troll" dogmatic Dunning-Kruger sophists, so by all means practice what you preach: "withdraw", lil butthurt schop. :smirk: — 180 Proof

Again thanks for displaying an example of the topic. Chatgpt has a good take. Describes you to a T:

An internet troll works by provoking reactions. Trolls often post inflammatory, off-topic, or simply annoying comments in online spaces with the goal of upsetting or frustrating others, often to entertain themselves or disrupt the flow of conversation. They typically exploit emotional triggers, baiting people into arguments

But it also understands what you do right below the radar:

People who don’t engage constructively or respectfully in disagreements often fall into a less obvious but still disruptive category of online behavior. These individuals may not outright troll, but they use tactics that impede productive discussion and amplify tension. Here’s how they typically operate:

Dismissive Language: Instead of addressing points thoughtfully, they’ll dismiss opposing views with sarcasm, short rebuffs, or blanket statements. This subtly shows disdain without contributing meaningfully to the conversation.
Passive-Aggressive Remarks: They may use veiled insults or condescending tones rather than direct criticism, creating a toxic atmosphere that can make people feel unheard or disrespected without outright hostility.
Refusal to Acknowledge Valid Points: Rather than considering points that counter their views, they ignore or downplay them, refusing to engage with any part of an argument they can’t immediately dismiss.
Straw Man Arguments and Deflection: Instead of addressing the actual points raised, they distort them, making it easier to refute, or pivot to unrelated issues to avoid the real debate.
Subtle Hostility: They might avoid outright insults but still make others feel belittled or unwelcome with tones that imply the inferiority of other perspectives.
Unlike overt trolls, these people often remain within the boundaries of site rules, making their behavior more challenging to address directly. However, their approach can be equally damaging to discourse by discouraging open, respectful dialogue and fostering an environment where productive exchanges are stifled. Responding calmly, asking clarifying questions, or even disengaging can help minimize the impact of their behavior.