I wasn't citing authority necessarily, just adding to the conversation. I felt it was important to bring to the discussion the difference between pity and compassion in the Nietzschean sense.

Also, a dictionary is not necessarily the best source for definitions in philosophy, since philosophers tend to have slightly different opinions of what a specific word means.

whereas feeling empathetic, sympathetic misery for the suffering is good. — Wosret

Nietzsche would vehemently disagree. Feeling pity for another person only breeds more suffering. Compassion, not pity, is the good.

My immediate thought is that intelligence (reason) cannot possibly support either optimism or pessimism (considered simply as expectational dispositions). As Hume points out our convictions that the future will resemble the past are not convictions of reason, but of mere habit. (See Hume’s ‘problem of induction’). — John

It's not that induction isn't rational (otherwise science would be irrational), it's that there is no way of logically proving via deduction what the future will hold. Predictions aren't necessarily irrational, though.

Pessimism:
1. a tendency to see the worst aspect of things or believe that the worst will happen; a lack of hope or confidence in the future
2. Philosophy a belief that this world is as bad as it could be or that evil will ultimately prevail over good.

Optimism
1 hopefulness and confidence about the future or the successful outcome of something
2 Philosophy the doctrine, esp. as set forth by Leibniz, that this world is the best of all possible worlds.
• the belief that good must ultimately prevail over evil in the universe. — Bitter Crank

The first point of the comparison regarding the personal feelings towards the future is psychological pessimism/optimism. A person who does not try to achieve because they may fail is a psychological pessimist, while a person who does try is a psychological optimist.

Philosophical pessimism, on the other hand, seems to be (at least to me) quite often paired with nihilism. The very lack of meaning, divine guidance, and substance behind existence is seen as a very troublesome thing, something that cannot coexist with flourishing existence. Things like the lack of any deity, the possibility for suffering and current predicament of suffering, the lack of a self despite our evolutionary intuitions, the passing of time and the irony of human history, the complete and utter lack of sympathy from the universe or god, the alienation of the human being, the tragic misstep of human evolution producing conscious beings, the hopelessness in the face of an increasing population of sentient meat tubes, the paradoxical problem of achieving sustained happiness in a societal machine powered by destructive emotions, the eventual demise of all life via entropy, etc. The pessimist asserts that there is no recovery from the loss of these values. Existence is seen, at the very least, a burden, and at the worst, a nightmare.

And while there is nothing inherently wrong with being a psychological optimist, a pessimist would think it is crazy to believe this optimism is applicable to the wider scheme of things as a philosophical position.

yet am profoundly annoyed when others dismiss Sam Harris without actually reading his work. — invizzy

This is a curious example to use. You don't necessarily need to actually read his work to understand that he is spouting the same old stuff philosophers have been saying, except it's outdated by over a century. It's embarrassing to call his work philosophy. He's not a philosopher, he's a neuroscientist who dabbles in philosophy and makes a fool of himself when he tries to merge the two domains.

This is THE reason I have come to love philosophy, at least "good" philosophy. Outside of this, you get idiots proclaiming they know that God doesn't exist on their cheesy blog, with ten stupid little jabs at religion. Or people who assume consequentialism is just obviously true, that moral realism is obviously wrong, and that their elementary, intellectual antics are super amazeballs compared to the serious work done by philosophers in the past. This is not to say that I am immune to spouting idiotic stuff, rather just that I am fed up with the arrogance of the average person.

I used to make stop motion animation movies.

Now I'm into astrophotography. But I'm not very good at it.

I want to take up an instrument but haven't gotten around to it.

Sometimes I write stories or poetry.

Maybe it was just his accent getting in the way, but isn't Zizek basically defining eudaimonia? A "flourishing" of the spirit, a sense of poise, readiness, acceptance, an underlying sense of purpose and accomplishment? He describes becoming excited about a new idea and ready to suffer: but this is exactly what eudaimonia is. Aristotle thought happiness (eudaimonia) was the settling of the soul in the most appropriate spot.

At least someone seems to agree...

I like how your example of a positive thing is pathetic compared to how utterly terrible the negative one is. Even in your own constructed examples, you can't win. Who in their right mind would be thrilled by those chances? Oh, boy, looking at the stars! — The Great Whatever

What you fail to realize is the probability of these happening. The probability of me getting impaled in a car crash? So negligible that it's not worth worrying about. The probability of me being able to enjoy a clear night sky? High enough that I should expect to have a good time.

Should I climb a mountain during a thunderstorm? Of course not, even if the view is spectacular. The probability of me getting struck by lightning is non-negligible. I would rather not be killed or permanently maimed by a thunderbolt.

It seems to me that any philosophical position that must claim that eating a cookie is torture has gone wrong somewhere. — The Great Whatever

Not the actual act of eating a cookie, but rather the continuation of tanha. Too much sensual pleasure leads to an addiction. Unfortunately, the vast majority of people seem to have an addiction to sensual pleasures, pleasures that are almost always disappointing and merely prolong the addiction.

I think a lot of it is, but there's just so much suffering in life that even removing that leaves you with too much to be acceptable, and of course still vulnerable to contingencies of suffering beyond your control. — The Great Whatever

Of course there is suffering, that is part of the nature of conscious life. But I disagree that there is necessarily an overwhelming amount of suffering, though. It certainly is not worth it to take the chance and have a child, but if you are already here then you have the chance of having some really cool experiences. Yes, tomorrow I could get in a car accident and have a pole rammed through my abdomen, impaling me. But tomorrow is also supposed to be a clear night sky, at least where I live. And I rather like looking at the stars.

Suffering is going to happen. It is inevitable. How you deal with the suffering is a different question altogether.

Certainly eating a cookie can make you happy -- true, only for a little bit, but why is a little bit not better than not at all? — The Great Whatever

Consuming a cookie will give you a temporary relief from that specific tanha. This is not happiness. I would go as far as to say that eating this cookie is a form of learnt self-torture. Happiness occurs when tanha is extinguished, when you are perfectly okay with your current situation.

In accepting pain, do I think, 'alright, I'm in pain?' But how does that help? — The Great Whatever

Yes. Realizing you are suffering is the first step to mindful living. The next step is to locate the source of suffering. I think you might be surprised at just how much suffering is self-caused and not out of our control.

So one can be happy without feeling any pleasure whatsoever? What sort of feeling is happiness, then? If it is not a feeling, why is it worth pursuing, since it seems that feelings are all that can possibly matter to us? And since if a feeling is good in its own right, it seems just to be pleasure, in what sense can we say happiness is worthwhile insofar as it is not pleasant or identical with pleasure? — The Great Whatever

What I meant by pleasure is any strictly sensual experiences. Like eating a cookie. A cookie will not bring you happiness, only temporary relief from the burden of desire.

Eudaimonia, or flourishing, is the "goodness" that is focused on in several philosophies, including Epicureanism, Buddhism, and Utilitarianism. You cannot achieve eudaimonia by eating a cookie. Eudaimonia, happiness, contentedness, these are separate from sensual pleasures, although most often they are accompanied by sensual pleasures. Without trying to be vague, eudaimonia is a different kind of pleasure. It is something that makes your life worth living instead of something that must be relieved. It is difficult to explain, but you will know when you experience it. Think about when something "clicks" and you just "get it", and suddenly love doing whatever you are doing. You finally learned to do a layup with ease. You can point out all the constellations in the sky and navigate around the night sky. You have found someone that appreciates you almost as much as you appreciate them. You are in a process, a journey, in which the result is simply a continuation of the journey, and you are perfectly okay with that.

This is what I feel is truly tragic about the human condition. It's not that we are suffering, but rather we are suffering when there are alternatives. We pursue excessive hedonism and build vast structures of ambition, only to see the hedonism disappointing and our structures crashing down.

Why don't you belong on a philosophy forum? :(

Art has become a commercial commodity instead of an exploration. It is now, more than ever (even the Renaissance), all about who can keep the attention of potential wealthy buyers. It doesn't even have to be "good" art. It just has to be attention-grabbing, different, unique, odd, or any other quality that sets it apart from other pieces. Now we have consultants that tell you which pieces of art were good, instead of judging the piece of art by how well it resonates with you.

Sometimes I enjoy modern art. But I can't stand it when someone tries to shove a stupid explanation behind it (the gray was chosen for its neutrality - bah), let me decide what I think it is about. I think the worst part about modern art is that it is impossible to tell the difference between an artist and a con artist, and you end up leaving the gallery wondering if you actually liked the piece or were influenced by a description below the piece. Or you leave the gallery wondering if you either hated the piece, or were just too skeptical to open up to the possibility that the artist was actually committed to doing art and not just money and fame.

I liked the part where you talked about chickens, that was very interesting.

I would like to add some more thoughts to why a pessimist may have a certain temperament.

Society in general seems to be built upon a stack of lies, a stack of "feel good" tricks and impossible delusions. The perpetual existence of the human race is given to be intrinsically valuable, for example. Literature, films and shows, video games, political decisions, etc are filled with plots of an evil villain who is out to kill all life. For example, I just got done finishing a quest line in a mmorpg that required me to defeat an antagonist that wished to wipe out all life on a planet to feed his eternal hunger, and he would have later gone on to eat all life in the galaxy if I hadn't stopped him. The rational of stopping him was said to be the preservation of the galactic civilization. My priorities were that this antagonist would have caused a horribly large amount of suffering. But when the final battle was over, I was left with a happy-sing-song tune playing in the background while wondering if what I did was right, wondering if something like this happened in real life, would I be an active part in opposing it.

This is just one example that shows the incongruency between my pessimistic outlook and the general outlook of society. Another would be birth, as well as the myth of progress, capitalism, religion, and politics. I am surrounded by a society that is fundamentally different than I would prefer it to be. It is comedic at best and despairing at worst. This is why I end up "escaping" from the world via books, video games, music, and philosophy, especially the latter two. And even the escapism sometimes doesn't work, as shown above.

Someone can obviously not just turn off nociceptors, or just "stop" feeling anxiety or any other kind of mental disturbance.

What you can do is to accept the pain that is present, limit your desires and strivings, and focus on fulfilling lasting goals and achievements.

As I said earlier: I reject the idea that pleasure is synonymous with happiness. Happiness, for me, is synonymous with contentedness and eudaimonia, and although pleasure often does accompany happiness, it is itself a completely separate feeling that cannot cause happiness by itself. Empty pleasure is suffering in itself, merely a distraction from the discontent.

If you experience happiness, you know why it is worthwhile.

But it's not up to me to determine. Pain feels bad no matter what my opinion is. That's why it's pain. If it were up to me, pain would never bother me because I'd just choose not to let it bother me. But I obviously can do no such thing, which is why pain is something dangerous at all in the first place. — The Great Whatever

But like I said above, the existence of pain and happiness are not mutually exclusive. I agree that pain is inevitable. But there is a certain amount of control someone has over the amount they receive and how much the pain affects them.

You may be right, but I don't know what pre-Socratic philosophy you would be talking about here. — The Great Whatever

Neither do I, I just remember reading that somewhere. :P

Existentialists do not talk about delusions of freedom as liberating. Certainly Sartre would not, anyway. — The Great Whatever

Camus at the very least talks about rebelling against life regardless of reality.

It seems to me that one motive for their general temperament is the feeling of being a traveler in a foreign land, or worse, a prisoner in a foreign land depending on how it is determined. — Thorongil

Or, as Cioran says: “Is it possible that existence is our exile and nothingness our home?”

even upon learning them, an element of mystery still remains and eludes us, gnaws at us. — Thorongil

The universe is fundamentally irrational. There is no reason to believe we will ever know everything.

In light of this ignorance, who could bring a child into it or more generally acquiesce to the direction of the crowd? They know scarcely any more than you do about why they're here. — Thorongil

I like this a lot.

Yet the pessimist will accept despair if they are still able to maintain what I shall call a praxis of humility. This involves never acting hubristically or in ignorance if one can help it, which is the only rational response to the situation of being alive. — Thorongil

I would like to quote a song:

"And if I claim to be a wise man,
Well, it surely means that I don't know"

-Kansas, "Carry on Wayward Son"

I would add to your praxis, that one should act compassionately. We are all in the same boat, thrown out into sea, alienated, afraid, and on the edge of drowning. It's all that we can do to stop from capsizing or sinking our ship. So when you come across a fellow seaman, show them a few knots, help patch their ship, and send them on their way. Maybe someday they will help you.

I agree with nearly everything you have said, Thorongil. Well said. (Y)

The problem isn't that no one is happy, the problem is that so many people think that they're supposed to be. — Wosret

This is such a great insight, Wosret. I wish I had said it myself ;)

Maybe we can't get into this here, but I don't see a reason for the distinction. It seems to me that pain and pleasure are bad and good on their own terms, whether you think so or not, and that nothing else fulfills these criteria. So insofar as there's a notion of eudaimonia, joy, happiness, or contentment that is not about pleasure, it either doesn't make sense or isn't worth pursuing if it does. — The Great Whatever

Pleasure and pain are indicators of general well-being. The value placed upon these feelings, and others, such as meaning, eudaimonia, happiness, etc, is up to the person themselves to determine. For example, I think there are different types of pleasures, one that simply stimulates the nerve endings, and one that is actually meaningful. The former leaves the person in a state of emptiness after it goes away, while the latter is something that simply complements the feeling of happiness. But perhaps you are right in that this belongs in a different thread.

It is certainly related to the hypostatization of the mind as a substance with an active faculty of willing, as in Descartes' philosophy, which is probably related to the Christian notion of the soul. It's a historical question. The more important thing is just that I don't think this notion of an existentialist heroic free will is at all true to life. That's all. — The Great Whatever

Pre-Socratic philosophy explored the ideas of free will long before Christianity. In fact (correct me if I am wrong here), Christianity's "free will" ideas came from the influence of the Mediterranean region.

I don't buy into classical libertarian free will either. But the fact of the matter is, we are, at the bare minimum, trapped within an illusion of having free will. There's no escaping it. Every action we do feels like we have actively had a role in it. This kind of fictionalism, in my opinion, is compatible with the existential heroism you speak of.

I'm not sure what that would mean, unless it means being dead. I don't know what being alive entails, if not suffering in the broad sense (feeling pleasure and pain), and I don't know I can imagine a life that is somehow only pleasant. To experience seems to bring with it the possibility of disappointment and suffering. — The Great Whatever

I reject the idea that pleasure is synonymous with happiness. Happiness, for me, is synonymous with contentedness and eudaimonia, and although pleasure often does accompany happiness, it is itself a completely separate feeling that cannot cause happiness by itself. Empty pleasure is suffering in itself, merely a distraction from the discontent.

If you can learn to prepare for the worst, hope for the best, and expect the mediocre, then you can live your life in such a way that minimizes disappointments and suffering, and even take some enjoyment out of life.

In the Sartrean sense, anyway -- there's even a direct lineage from Sartre's notion of the will back to Descartes' in the Meditations, who in turn relates this explicitly to the will of God. The idea that the will is free from external influence and acts as a sort of force doesn't make much sense out of the context of that tradition. — The Great Whatever

Why does it not make sense? Is this related to determinism/fatalism?

Theoretically optional? As opposed to actually optional, I suppose... — The Great Whatever

What I meant by theoretical was that it is not guaranteed to eliminate all suffering, otherwise that would be the nirvana fallacy. It is perfectly conceivable, however, to minimize the amount of suffering one experiences.

Existentialism is a holdover from Christian ideas of the will. Those aren't tenable in the face of everyday life, imo. — The Great Whatever

I would like some clarification on this.

Glad to see your dental and psychological health is doing alright. Hopefully the heart thing isn't anything.

I was under the impression that you thought there were alternatives.

Truth is, every injury and such I've had has been an ordeal that has somehow help me develop into who I am today. When I play baseball and do other activities I can honestly say this is a lot of stuff i really could have lived much better without, but hey... shit happens and I seem to have the ability to deal with this and move on.

If the next things finally kills my sports career, I'll be a bit disappointed, but hey... there is always another rock for me to shove up my own private Mt. Olympus. — Mayor of Simpleton

I like you attitude. Cool story.

Here is a quick rundown of what I think about this issue:

According to tradition, during his trial in Athens, Socrates muttered: The unexamined life is not worth living.

I completely agree. To be a person who just runs through life without analyzing it lives a mediocre life.

But a person who spends too much time ruminating about life and not living life ends up ruining their life.

The trick is to figure out how to deal with pain. I said it before and I'll say it again: For the most part, pain is inevitable, but suffering is theoretically optional.

Additionally, there is no mutual exclusivity between suffering and happiness.

The existentialists felt that the truly free man makes a conscious choice to not commit suicide every day he wakes up. And if a man is not making a conscious choice, then he is not authentic, but of bad faith. I honestly do believe that most people on Earth do not really understand why they keep living, they just mindlessly go through the actions, rocking back and forth between suffering and boredom without even realizing it. This is why Socrates was correct. To analyze one's life and to continue to live regardless has the chance of procuring a truly meaningful existence. To be extremely familiar with the sense of one's mortality is authentic and pure.

Pragmatism is focus on outcomes. A pragmatist accepts a thing as real "for all practical purposes" and finds no value in trying to go beyond that. — Mongrel

Is there any other way of determining the existence of something other than to directly observe it and assume all methods of rational inquiry are working?

Damn, that's a lot of injuries. A brain tumor also sounds scary. I've always wanted to get a brain scan, mostly just for shits and giggles, but also to make sure nothing malignant is going on in there. It's cool that you are able to look at it in a lighthearted way. MPatHG is one of my favorite movies.

Pretty much spot on. The theist might not even see any absurdity in existence, which is why god exists. Or, the theist sees the absurdity in existence but decides that this is fundamentally a proof of god: i.e. look at how ridiculous life is if god doesn't exist! He must exist!

My stance is one would first have to define 'art' before being able to judge its quality. — Sentient

I agree. I think art is mostly subjective. If you make something, chances are someone is going to find it aesthetically appealing.

For a lot of modern art: if I hadn't been told that this piece was by "so and so" who is "very famous on the European continent," I probably would have passed it over without a second glance.

Thank you Sapientia. I was worried this thread would take a turn in that direction...

Are skeptical probabilities not enough to pragmatically determine if something is real or not? So being sober and fully rational would make experiences more probable of being true than experiences under the influence or while in an irrational mindset?

I printed this out and started annotating it. Hopefully I'll be able to join the discussion within a day or two.

Well, it seems like I haven't quite reached that point yet, if ever.

If we want to keep discussing this, maybe we ought to make a new thread so this one doesn't become confusing with two different topics.

Sorry to hear about your brother. Hopefully he will continue to be alright.

Regarding you being an anime girl:

Interesting that antinatalist philosophy made your guys depressed. I would think it would come as a sort of relief, or hope (no matter how false that hope might be), that there is a way to end suffering, that we don't have to live. That realization is liberating, even if ultimately unrealistic. — The Great Whatever

It's depressing because it conflicts with society's view that life is worth starting.

I have started to view it as a tragicomic happening, and I try to make the most of the life I have.

But to answer your question, if I saw a prancing zebra, I wouldn't deny what I saw. Deciding what it means that I saw it (whether it was real or not) would be an interpretation. — Mongrel

What do you mean, "interpretation"? Sorry, I was confused with this part of your response.

Well, it was like that for a while. I think I stayed home from elementary school the following day. I remember taking a lot of ibuprofen pills to cope with the headaches, because every day after school I would come home with a headache.

Luckily it calmed down after a while (months), during which my tics transitioned into different facial expressions and vocals, so my eyes got a break. It kind of goes in cycles. These days TS is a minor nuisance, but it is still visible if you talk to me for a while in person. I've learned to control and suppress the tics in certain situations like a speech or an interview, but every now and then they become really bad when I'm stressed or anxious. For example, when I am running a 5K, my tics can get bad because I'm stressed. Or when I'm taking a midterm exam. It's weird, and it's hard to explain the feeling. It's almost like my eyebrows (my current tic) feel heavy and are attached to a rubber band that is under tension, pulling them together.