Does human nature refute philosophical pessimism?
When I state the OP, as "Does human nature refute philosophical pessimism?", I think I can only speak for the majority of people in the world that I can say means that they seem to want to survive.
Of course, people enjoy food, sex, forming relationships, getting married, and maybe even having children. With the progress of science, technology, and medicine life has become an easier task pertaining the fundamental question of survival.
Therefore, given that the question can only be phrased as a generalization, do you think human nature refutes philosophical pessimism?
Of course, people enjoy food, sex, forming relationships, getting married, and maybe even having children. With the progress of science, technology, and medicine life has become an easier task pertaining the fundamental question of survival.
Therefore, given that the question can only be phrased as a generalization, do you think human nature refutes philosophical pessimism?
Comments (33)
It seems to me that life is unfair to the few who proclaim philosophical pessimism. Or that many would say that philosophical pessimism is justified by such fundamental teachings of Buddhism and Buddha himself.
Is it true that philosophical pessimism originates from unfairness, on our part towards (in example) animals or people born poor? I have rarely seen it portrayed this way, and yet it seems accurate, in my opinion.
Quoting Shawn
And they'd be mistaken.
One could argue that the universe is naturally conducive to fun and celebration. I'd say so. But why? And you can't reduce it, and people generally get annoyed if you try.
It's the way it is, matter loves being matter.
I see. Yet, the way humanity seems to be progressing is that human nature doesn't seem to be as painful or full of boredom as you describe it.
If anything are we getting better at distracting ourselves nowadays from boredom? Pain sucks but, there's always legalized marijuana? :rofl:
Why is that?
So if Buddhist teaching stopped at the first of these, then it would be pessimistic.
Quoting Shawn
'One of these surely will drown out the sorrow, but where are you tomorrow?' ~ Steely Dan, 'Big Black Cow'.
I didn't "describe" "human nature ... as painful of full of boredom".
True. But, if modern life gets on just fine with pain and boredom, and with it more and more ways to deny it, then in some sense does that mean we're getting better at avoiding philosophical pessimisim as a conclusion?
True, but do you ever ponder if the four noble truths are actually true in modern day living? Had Buddha been born today would he arrive at the same conclusions?
It's difficult to separate, in fact probably not possible, our biological inclinations with our developed reflective nature. The tendency in nature of living beings, is to continue existing. The vast majority of everything has died, so those that remain must have some kind of "optimism" built-in, if not blind willing.
It doesn't refute anything. One can say that human nature affirms a tendency to go on living, but that's most of life.
Our experiences combined with our particular genetic makeup, is what creates our worldview.
Perhaps pessimism, to some degree, is an ability of considered reflection, as opposed to mere instinct.
Naive optimism is not better than hopeless pessimism. But there are degrees in all views. I think optimism of the will, as Gramsci said, is the best we can strive for. But not optimism of the intellect, world situations considered.
More to the point, what would a Buddhist answer be? 'Obviously yes, or I would not be Buddhist.'
Modern western culture is in many ways materialistic and nihilistic which causes a lot of unhappiness and alienation, even despite the West's technological powers and economic and political liberty. It's an existential problem or plight that is at issue.
Then what is the philosophers answer to philosophical pessimism?
Which pessimist argument? There's different varieties to choose from.
I guess we could say that a general statement could be life is not worth living, if we take this to follow from life is suffering and boredom in the extreme. Which is debatable.
A simple answer is, everybody dies, so this misery will end. And if you want to end sooner, there's a way out. A scary, likely quite painful, manner. It's an option, though not an easy one to make.
So either find something worthwhile now that you are here and life will take care of itself. Or speed the process up, drugs and alcohol and all that.
And if the pessimist feels empathy, which most do, then maybe see if you can help other somehow. What else?
Does human nature exist and if it did could it refute anything?
Quoting Manuel
The solution to most wallowing.
Many of the pessimists I have met have been comfortable, middle class folk who seem to get something out of pessimism. Those doing it tough (poverty, sickness, trauma) I've found are often optimists.
It's a pernicious issue. If life indeed is full of suffering and strife against it, then what's there better to do? Isn't the conclusion based off philosophical pessimism that suicide is justified a non sequitur given that the vast majority of people seem to find something in life - be it helping other people or trying to find something worth doing in life - worth pursuing?
If it is true that empathy is the source of pain for a philosophical pessimist, then what's wrong with 'care'? Why does it have to seem so selfish to end ones life in a hurry rather than care for something such as ones life or another person?
I'm not sure if I adequately expressed myself before. But, my usual argument to philosophical pessimism is that it's some form of overgeneralization on the part of the individual towards the scope of existence of the whole of humanity. I don't buy into that assumption that humanity is indeed faced with brute suffering that can't be remedied.
It doesn't seem natural to assume so, and that's all perhaps my point amounts to.
Schopenhauer's therapy, IIRC, includes practicing compassion and cultivating musical jubilation.
Quoting Shawn
Philosophical pessimism expresses – probably in some sliver of the species is caused by – an aspect, or aspects, of human nature: suspicion, dread, courage, alienation ...
Of course there are places and situations on earth right now where pessimism may seem more apt.
That's the problem right there!
Whenever we try to generalize, we end up in hot water. Unfortunately or not, we can't help it - we need rules god damn it! Without some patterns how the hell are we to make sense of the world? Attending to the particulars of every thing/situation - treating them as unique - is going to overload our minds and cause a system crash.
What? Me, generalizing? Nonsense!
They are timeless, they are not bound to any particular time and place. They are about the nature of existence, not about a particular person or society.
[Quote]Had Buddha been born today would he arrive at the same conclusions?[/quote]
Of course, provided his father wouldn't lock him up in a mental health institution.
As long as there is eating, consumption of any kind, this long there is going to be suffering.
To be or not to be. Not to be. Not to be in the first place. It's too late for us.
They do. One common rebuttal is that they are deluded or fooling themselves. I say if they are, good for them. Likewise if a poor person goes all in on religion, if it makes life better great.
Quoting Shawn
It looks as if the person has to measure how bad life is vs. how good it feels (or actually does) helping another person out.
In some rather clear instances, say, a super painful diseases or maybe even the most severe type of depression, in which you just can't stand life at all, no matter what you do, then I think suicide is an option and valid in these cases.
Well, I think it's an option for everybody, if we don't have control over our lives, what do we have control over? But that's besides the point.
One would have to consider the extent of the pessimism. A moderate amount of it can be helpful as in sobering. Too much is destructive.
What kind of political agenda?
Quoting schopenhauer1
This is simply how things are. I understand the frustration; but, it seems to me that some people find life enjoying. I don't have an answer for each and every specified case of philosophical pessimism arising in a person's head; but, it appears as if this is not a common feature to have a disposition towards life. Would you agree?
Quoting schopenhauer1
I don't think we are so limited in options, at least under the careful guidance of a caring parent. At least, money isn't a troublesome issue until your on your own. To make money is another issue; but, again I feel as if this were about fairness, fundamentally. Is that true?
How could one ever hope to measure such an issue without too much bias? Hmm? :chin:
You can't get out of your skin to a neutral perspective free of bias. In other words, we are irredeemably biased beings.
If the pain is too strong for that person, helping others won't be a consideration. If it's intermittent or less severe, then they can consider the benefits of helping others.
It’s made on another persons behalf. The reasons people use for why it’s justified to create suffering. Anything other than the child will suffer is the political reason as suffering is what matters . Happiness, growth, or any other X reason is neutral or non moral consideration. Even seeing someone who will be virtuous is overlooking that child for an agenda (to see virtue being carried out by your offspring). It’s all “in spite of suffering I want to see this carried out”. It’s the in spite of I have a problem with.