On Life and Complaining
I was playing a simple game, and I had this realization that life may be devoid of meaning; but, still be enjoyable. The chance to partake in the practice of philosophy should be a pleasant experience even if the answers can never be known. After all, philosophy begins in wonder.
Firstly, one can say many things about life, that it sucks, is full of suffering, that they wouldn't want to bring children into such a world, and so on... But, despite all this, life is a mystery nonetheless. We came about by a stroke of chance, depending on whether you're religious or not. As things are, scientists explore nature and in their own way feel the mystery of life through reason. Religious types might feel similarly; but, instead of 'reason', it's faith. I will most likely never be too religious a person, although I'm sure many scientists might have become religious over the sheer complexity of nature or elegant simplicity. I'm too firm a believer in reason to be persuaded by storytelling. However, I can appreciate and respect the religious mindset of awe with the world seen through spirituality and faith.
Second, the internet is full of complaints. I don't think there ever existed a person that never complained. Yet, why do we complain so much? See, I'm doing it too. I suppose it's a matter of maturity.
There's a cognitive dissonance here. Yet, the resolution should be obvious.
Thoughts?
Firstly, one can say many things about life, that it sucks, is full of suffering, that they wouldn't want to bring children into such a world, and so on... But, despite all this, life is a mystery nonetheless. We came about by a stroke of chance, depending on whether you're religious or not. As things are, scientists explore nature and in their own way feel the mystery of life through reason. Religious types might feel similarly; but, instead of 'reason', it's faith. I will most likely never be too religious a person, although I'm sure many scientists might have become religious over the sheer complexity of nature or elegant simplicity. I'm too firm a believer in reason to be persuaded by storytelling. However, I can appreciate and respect the religious mindset of awe with the world seen through spirituality and faith.
Second, the internet is full of complaints. I don't think there ever existed a person that never complained. Yet, why do we complain so much? See, I'm doing it too. I suppose it's a matter of maturity.
There's a cognitive dissonance here. Yet, the resolution should be obvious.
Thoughts?
Comments (66)
I think complaining can serve a host of different functions.
Because we care about something, and we think complaining can have an effect on realising that something.
Because it can play a role in our emotional economy, i.e. sometimes venting is better than keeping it all for yourself all the time.
Because it can serve as a socio-political tool to help getting what we want.
Because we have legitimate grievances and we want redress.
What matters with regard to maturity is whether the complaint is justified/necessary as well as how it's presented, not that it's a complaint per se.
To correct the record, I've never complained, which is why I'm sick and tired of all these other people who are complaining day after day after day.
If we cared so much, why are we still complaining?
What does that mean?
Yeah; but, what good has complaining ever resulted in?
It means that there's nothing inherently wrong in complaining. It's the context in which we do it that counts.
Quoting Posty McPostface
Can you really not think of any situation whereby a complaint could result in a positive outcome?
So, when is one's complaint justified?
Thanks. Give me a pointer and I'll see if I can bite the cost.
Edit: Just found it one Amazon. Nevermind.
I would say if it results in or at least aims at a positive outcome and is undertaken for good reason. So, a positive or justified complaint to me would be one the motivation for which is a wrong, and the goal of which is to right that wrong. A negative complaint is one that involves simply venting with regard to a wrong (perceived or otherwise). For example, complaining to the appropriate authorities about being sexually harassed at work would generally fall in the former category while venting on the internet about how shit your life is in the latter.
I suppose we could do a more comprehensive taxonomy of complaining by distinguishing between positive v negative and justified v unjustified complaints (for example, a complaint being justified (motivated by a wrong) doesn't necessarily make it positive (if one just vents with no hope of redressing that wrong)) but it's not necessary to do so to make the basic point that complaining is not always the wrong thing to do.
A complaint is justified morally, on grounds of justice, or duty, or some such. But perhaps one should consider too its felicity. A justified complaint directed towards someone who can do nothing to remedy it is infelicitous. We call it moaning, as distinct from whinging, which is unjustified complaint that amounts to a demand for special treatment. Moaning and whinging may get you a biscuit though, or just make you feel better and other folks worse.
I think you are performing a category error or at least it doesn't fit the definition of what you're formally describing as (constructive) "criticism" and a complaint here. Correct me if I'm wrong on this.
I'm not sure. Are you saying you think I'm confusing "complaining" with "criticism".
Yes, I think so.
Which example of mine do you think would be better classed as criticism than complaint? And I'll try to justify my definition in that case.
Righting a wrong would be a case of criticism. Without going into the murky waters of intentionality, let's assume it's constructive criticism here.
Venting, ranting, and trolling would be a case or form of complaining.
It could be both. Complaining implies criticism when the complaint concerns an agent (rather than, for example, venting about the weather).
Quoting Posty McPostface
It could be, but the example I gave concerned an official complaint regarding sexual harassment. Are we agreed that that case is also a case of complaining?
But, they surely aren't the same. One can imply the other, and be logically sound in such an assertion, depending on how you view things; but, both are distinct, in my opinion.
Quoting Baden
Yes, I'm in agreement here.
Well, I only made the claim that one implied the other in the case of a complaint regarding an agent. But, examples aside, what is the specific semantic distinction you want to highlight?
Well, I think that criticism can be justified by some rules or whatever normative framework you can have. Complaints are never justified, though, under this understanding.
But you've just agreed that my sexual harassment example is an example of a bona fide complaint. Clearly this is justified in relation to normative rules regarding employee interactions, right?
What's the deal against complaining? Complaining is a way of showing disapproval at a state of affairs as @Baden stated. It can be said that the US got started by colonists complaining. In fact there is a whole sections in the Declaration of Independence called "Grievances" that are essentially just complaints. Complaints are the catalyst to try to get to a different state of affairs. Those who don't complain and perhaps simply comply with a bad state of affairs may be indirectly complicit in the bad state of affairs.
I bring up a lot of the negative aspects of the human experience, and the structural suffering of life. I guess this can be construed as complaining. But then, I am bringing up disapproval of a negative state of affairs. In this case, it is the negative state of affairs of life itself. It is perhaps to catalyze people to look at it for what is going on to us as a whole.
So, I guess there is an overlap between the two, which is based solely on agency. That doesn't seem right; but, I digress.
Yes, while I understand that. Complaining breeds complaining, hence the issue with the internet in general, I suppose. Instead, the logical progression, in my mind and in accord with reason, would be the utilization of constructive criticism to actually perform some change in the matter or complaint against some state of affairs.
Well, it's the distinction that jumps out at me, but there's much more to it. Criticism also covers, for example, literary and philosophical critique where, though agency is a factor, the primary distinction vs. complaining is more like the search for truth rather than the emotional aversion to it as revealed in a negative reaction to a given state of affairs. Anyway, it seems to me it's a particular type of complaining that you are highlighting, and rightly so, as objectionable. I'm, like others, only problematising the generalisation.
The complaining comes first- the active change comes next. The second part is definitely the hardest. It's like someone who always thinks they have a great idea but can never quite manifest it in an actual business.
Complaints are typically negative in nature. There's discord or unease that arises from their performative action. So, since I like bashing philosophical pessimism, relativism, and nihilism-let me ask. Does philosophical pessimism fall on itself in never being able to escape the neverending complaining about the world or some state of affairs? In other words, what good has philosophical pessimism produced?
This can be answered in two ways:
The intraworldly approach might say it leads to antinatalism- don’t reproduce more suffering and that it leads to some basic metaphysical understanding which, if you are one to be inclined to like having that understanding, might be said to be “good” to have.
The holistic approach would find it an invalid question. The problem with question is that it implicitly asserts good to a) exist as an output and b) put production as some measuring stick. A problem in the first place is that we must produce. The idea of producing something itself is part of the problem, so why would philosophical pessimism be worried about it? It’s structurally suffering, so an intraworldly solution like X output doesn’t even make sense.
.
Of course. That’s what I’ve been saying all along, when such matters are discussed at these forums.
.
.
No, that’s a theory, an unsupported assumption, and one that I don’t agree with. But we can agree that our being in a life is remarkable and astonishing, even though it has an explanation.
.
.
A valid study, but without bearing on metaphysics. (…except that some specialist experts on QM say that it lays to rest the notion of an objective physical world.)
.
But sure, the physical world is mysterious, even as a physics study.
.
.
It isn’t a matter of “instead”. Religious faith in no way contradicts science’s reason. …nor vice-versa.
.
.
That’s the story that True-Believers in Materialism and Science-Worship tell themselves. As I said, contrary to popular belief, reason doesn’t contradict religion. And the Atheists’ notion of religion as “storytelling” is simplistic. Do some religions tell stories? Sure. Does that define and characterize religion? No.
.
By all means, enjoy science! But have the humility and modesty to not expound, unsupported, on other matters.
.
Michael Ossipoff
.
We get that from the news too.
.
.
Exactly—It’s largely or mostly in the societal structure.
.
But no, you won’t change that.
.
.
No sh*t.
.
.
You say it, but you don’t support it.
.
Yes we all know that, to varying degrees, there’s misfortune and suffering in life. …not justifying your sweeping generalization.
.
Philosophical discussion should consist of more than assertions.
.
.
You mean, “…in part”. When you speak of what’s going on for us as a whole, you’re speaking without support.
.
Barbara Ehrenreich said something to the effect that death doesn’t interrupt life, but rather life interrupts sleep.
.
Her statement is about which is the natural, rightful, usual, normal state of affairs, and which is the temporary interruption.
.
Of course you realize that this life is an interesting phenomenon, and that it’s temporary, a temporary interruption of the usual state of affairs.
.
What more is there to be said about it? The meaning and point of your complaining about it isn’t clear.
.
(Strictly-speaking, it would be more accurate to say that life, overall, doesn’t really interrupt anything, because there was no “You” to initially experience not being in a life, because the person “You” consists of a complementary part of that life-experience-possibility-story.
.
If there’s reincarnation (and there probably is), then of course now life and sleep interrupt eachother for a while. …until the temporary interruption of sleep by life ends, after a very many lives, at the distant end-of-lives.)
.
One reason why your complaining about being in a life doesn’t make sense is that (as many have already pointed out) there was no “You” before you were in a life. …because, as I said above, you consist of a complementary part of your life-experience-possibility-story.
.
In other words, there was no “You” for life to happen to. Consider that before you complain about being in a life. Nothing happened to you, because there wasn’t any you other than the one in this life. There was no other way you could have been, other than in this life.
.
Or do you believe in disembodied spirits that were there before they somehow later ended up in a life?
.
If you’re right, and there’s no reincarnation, then life will be over for you at the end of this life. Yes, in the meantime, some hardship (more for some than others) is part of the nature of life. It’s temporary.
.
Regardless of whether you agree with any explanation for why you’re in a life, it, as I said above, is an interesting temporary phenomenon.
.
Michael Ossipoff
Ironic
Your way of provoking through dismissive pragmatism is not very philosophical. Look in thine own mirror.
I support what I say. You don't support your sweeping generalization about life being overall bad.
Michael Ossipoff
The basis to start the conversation would be charity. You don't have that, no use even engaging. Take lessons from Bitter Crank.. Get better at disagreeing without being disagreeable.
In the ongoing context of your long failure to support your comments, or to answer or listen to others' comments, eventual blunt language is inevitable.
But, in this thread, I didn't say anything about existential-angst as fashion. I didn't criticize you. It's you who are making it personal, ad-hominem, by changing the subject to my allegedly bad manners.
I wasn't rude to you in this thread.
Michael Ossipoff
Again incredibly obnoxious...Why would engage someone that just provokes..even to make a point? Are you trying to troll me into having a drawn out name throwing fight with someone who has no respect..even on internet forum terms?
Quoting Michael Ossipoff
I answer and listen to comments to respectful debators who debate in good faith without trolling or abusing from the get go.
Quoting Michael Ossipoff
I'm confronting you on the tone and tenor of your comments.. The etiquette and protocol you use in debating me in particular. It automatically makes me not want to engage in conversation.
Quoting Michael Ossipoff
Dismissive pragmatism, dismissive, scornful attitude in general.. why would I want to deal with that? It wouldn't be a meaningful conversation. Look, you may bring up some interesting points of debate, but until the scornful trolling stops, I don't want to engage with it.
Engage? Meaningful conversation? I guess that's what you call your oblivious interminable repetition of your same old assertions.
It's more of a never-ending monologue than a meaningful conversation
Michael Ossipoff
Again, scornful characterizations of my arguments are not going to get you anywhere in this debate. Do you think of it as some sort of call to arms.. that I must defend my honor? What's your objective? Is this just you venting about my posts?
But, both these approaches are the product of a complaint. Or to put it another way, two negatives don't necessarily produce a positive in this case. The whole ideology is marred with negativity.
To borrow from CBT, there's also a gross overgeneralization being performed in that the world is completely devoid of anything good that someone can experience. Not to mention painting with a large brush, or black and white thinking.
Oh I don't know...The whole point is to answer what someone said, not necessarily to convince them. Did you think that anyone would consider that even a remote possibility?
One sometimes just answers for the benefit of visitors to the forum, for example.
I throw down the gauntlet ! :D
I have no idea what you're talking about. You're too sensitive. You see attack-manners and rudeness where there is none. I merely answered things that you said. By the usual standards of this forum, I've been unusually polite. You're the one with all the individual criticism. You're the one who posts messages about a person instead of about the topic.
Why didn't you get this upset when someone said something like, "it isn't the world that's broken--It's you." ?
I don't think I'm sounding more critical than Posty McPostface.is.
You'd benefit by listening to what he says. ...but of course you never listen.
You mean why bother? As I said, it isn't to convince you, but only to post answers, for the benefit of anyone who is interested in answers to your pessimism. (Is it rude to call it pessimism?)
I guess I answer just in case someone else has felt perceptions similar (but genuine) to what you're saying.
But, I have to admit that, more and more, I doubt your sincerity about what you're saying. That's why I used the word "Schtick".
Michael Ossipoff
The squeaking wheel gets the grease. (That's a folk saying. Squeaking wheels are similar to complaining individuals. People who complain get fried in hot rancid fat. NO, sorry, that's not what it means. It means that complaints tend to get addressed because those with some wherewithal get tired of hearing people whining, wingeing, bitching, and carping all the time.
That saying is on my second place for favourite sayings. The first is: It is what it is.
See the conflict there?
What do you object to?
Quoting Bitter Crank
You're in the right place. It's right here.
No one denies there is good someone can experience. That is not the point of pessimism. The point is the suffering of the lack that is always in the equation. Good is not seen as the carrot and the stick. Rather, the process itself, is considered either absurd or based on a basis of a foundational lack. CBT is not a philosophy. The goal of psychology is to ensure the person is well-integrated to function well in modern life. They are techniques for a patient who has mental functions that are not processing at a level deemed efficient by that same patient. It doesn't provide a metaphysical understanding of life. Also, being that CBT, and psychology in general is to help integrate into society, of course acceptance of the structural suffering, or psychological techniques will be employed to cope, overcome, and deal with life are going to be part of the strategy. The two do not have to be mutually exclusive though.
Lack of what?
Quoting schopenhauer1
Lack of what?
Quoting schopenhauer1
That's true; but, I believe that CBT has something to teach us apart from its psychoanalytic settings. I believe that it's something of the sort of being more rational rather than emotional or maybe both. Perhaps, this is the lack you're speaking of? Of being more rational?
Quoting schopenhauer1
Well, it's one and the same, don't you think?
Allow me to complain about this mischaracterization. You haven't broken the rules, but the idea you've been unusually polite by the standards of this forum isn't remotely true. So, you have the right to ignore @schopenhauer1's complaints about you, but please don't bring the rest of us into it.
This is perfect.
So one main theme in pessimism is that at root, in either human nature, animal nature, or the nature of existence itself, we are in a constant state of a deprivation/lack of something/ desire, etc. Satisfaction is always only temporary. Boredom, in the human animal, is an almost "proof" of the dissatisfaction of mere being. Thus, we can adjust certain expectations, goals, and thought-processes to try to achieve an equanimity in a mental health issue, or anxiety about an aspect of life, but this does not necessarily get rid of the underlying, metaphysical lack that is baked into the human experience (or existence itself pace Schopenhauer).
Quoting Posty McPostface
That is fine. Rational is kind of bandied about in too many ways to be fully useful a word, but in this case you seem to mean a sort of psychological state where a person's decisions do not get overcome by anxious thoughts, depressing thoughts, etc. That is fine. If someone has what they consider a dysfunction and believes certain strategies to work in order to "break" a cycle of emotionally distressing thoughts, then that is what therapists try to do (if they do it well). However, no matter how "well-adjusted" someone is, they can still hold a metaphysical view that the world or that human nature has a state of dissatisfaction, that something is always lacking (whether that be in surviving, entertaining, or maintenance related goals).
Quoting Posty McPostface
I don't think so. A metaphysical view and psychological techniques to cope with various perceived (or real) mental distress can be considered two different and mutually exclusive realms. One can make psychological techniques perhaps into some metaphysical view, but that is not a necessity.
Not, necessarily so. Satisfaction can be derived from life itself, creating a virtuous circle. But, that really isn't the gist of the issue I want to bring up. Namely, that what virtue (of such supreme importance) can be found in philosophical pessimism? The negation of life itself? Normatively we know that isn't true.
Quoting schopenhauer1
I understand. But, I don't see where this leads to.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Yes.
Quoting schopenhauer1
But, that's inconsistent with one's identity as a being.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Echoing Wittgenstein, Plato, and (particularly) Aristotle, and the Stoics (even Cynics), according to my understanding... I think, that both are the same.
Again, you make the error of looking for some sort of results. This is the very intraworldly affairs that a PP would most likely not consider to be in the same category as that of the aesthetic view of life itself. This is equivalent to asking a painter to quantify his artistic values with a bottom line of profits.
So, a PP does derive joy or pleasure or happiness from the aesthetic view of humankind. Is that what a true PP would say?
Quoting schopenhauer1
Not so. I equate psychological wellbeing or eudaimonia with "results" here.
I don't know. There may be a sense of consolation in pessimism. Sometimes, I get a bit giddy reading an author explain the situation that is life in a particularly powerful turn of phrase. However, I think the pleasure or happiness is tangential to the actual picture that is being perceived.
Quoting Posty McPostface
Psychological wellbeing has to be defined. But using the idea of eudaimonia, it is an idea that is almost besides the point for the aesthetics of PP. You can attempt to achieve eudaimonia- this doesn't override the metaphysical understanding of PP. However, the metaphysical understanding of PP would most likely turn away from such a notion. Rather, projects, relationships, and such are the products of a metaphysical lack and then coping with this lack. Baden actually made a point once about PP which was prescient. He said that PP's idea of a most ideal state would be one akin to death or sleep with no dreams. It is dissatisfaction that brings about the desire for eudaimonia. It is a method to cope with the world, but that we have to cope and deal with the world is what the PP is after.
What's great about it? Keep in mind that I live a very pessimistic life myself. Isn't pessimism self-indulging? One lives in a made up world of one's own making and wallows contently in it. I don't complain about the world; but, my own world of my own making, not the other way around...
Quoting schopenhauer1
Normatively we have some idea of what "normal" people do or behave or feel like, since we can emulate them. I think, that's why we watch so much TV. Not only is it entertaining; but, we're emulating them as we watch them. You know that feeling that you get in your head of what the person is going to say or do? I guess that's anticipation?
Quoting schopenhauer1
How so?
Quoting schopenhauer1
But, coping is an active practice. Nothing about wanting things is a conscious or active practice.
Quoting schopenhauer1
What's wrong with sleep with dreams? At least pleasant dreams?
Quoting schopenhauer1
So, let me just recount. We are imperfect, due to the nature of the world or ourselves in relation to it. Do we cope with this deficit by trying to achieve eudaimonia? But, coping is an activity.
Quoting schopenhauer1
But, PP encourages passivity and inaction or withdrawal from the world, no? I mean, since the world is such a mean place then why expose yourself to criticism, complaints, toil, struggle? It would simply be inconsistent to state otherwise. So, is this how you cope with a situation? I don't think anyone would define that a winning strategy or effective coping.
I don't really know what you're trying to say. I characterize it more as rebellion rather than mere acceptance. This is perhaps why I thought your criticism of complaining tout court needed to be addressed. There are legitimate grievances and a rebellion can be justified against it.
Quoting Posty McPostface
I have no problems with it. Quoting Posty McPostface
I don't know if PP has an active stance against or for the achievement of eudaimonia. It might fit in a pessimistic metaphysical framework actually. My main gripe with it is that it ignores the metaphysical lack behind the scenes.
Quoting Posty McPostface
A Schopenhaurean pessimist might recommend withdrawing into ascetic practice or aesthetic practice or acts of compassion.. anything to not focus on your own willing nature. If the individual will is supreme then the diminishing of it would be the strategy against its grip. I don't know if I really prescribe to that recommendation. Rather, understanding the restlessness, discussing it with others, and finding consolation is about as good as we can do. Eudaimonia and other virtue theory concepts remind me a little too much of the average middle class agenda.. it is amenable for social institutions and people in power to use to keep things going the way they are.. if the natives buy into the very values that keep things going as they are, then all the better.
I have in mind the distinction between appearances and reality. Think about the title in your car's rear view mirror, saying that objects in the mirror are closer than they appear, as an example.
Quoting schopenhauer1
A rebellion against what? The fact that life seems unfair? Everyone experiences that more or less; but, they cope with it differently than a PP would.
Quoting schopenhauer1
But, that's not coping. That's wallowing in one's misery and asking others to hold hands with you.
I didn't mean to compare myself to written theoretical guidelines. I meant to compare myself to actual conduct.
Undeniably, easily-demonstrably, with respect to the mid-range of the politeness-scale here, I'm far to the polite side of it.
Unprovably, but plausibly, I suggest that I'm on the polite side of the mean, median and mode too.
Of course the evaluation of politeness, and especially an estimate of its mean and median, is subjective and definitely doesn't lend itself to agreement.
Michael Ossipoff
Again, it is not about wallowing. There is a lack at the root of things. We need homeostasis, we need entertainment (which I define broadly). Yes everyone has to deal in the first place. Yes it is worth exploring the "unfairness" as you characterize it. Acceptance, though the popular self-help approach is also a way to keep you from looking too much into it.