schopenhauer1January 28, 2020 at 19:0211075 views123 comments
So barring cliched suicide responses and an appeal to therapy, is there any philosophical insights for people who simply dont like the premises of life?
It's kind of ironic you mentioned this, I was just reading today that Millennial's are now considered the therapy generation.
I don't have any philosophical insights other than a sort of alternative-pragmatism. Meaning, I myself, replace therapy with hobbies and other recreational sorts of interests. Examples include anything that offers an adrenaline rush, endorphin high; riding dirt bikes, jetskiis, performing music, etc. and/or on the other side of the spectrum; meditation, hot tub, sunlight, boating, nude sunbathing, nature, etc...
If nothing else it's way to fellowship and stay connected.
Reply to Wallows Very little. I'm not particularly familiar with Confuscianism and didn't find much inspiring in what I have read of it. Major influences (on that particular topic) are Pragmatism, Absurdism, Buddhism, Stoicism, the Greek cardinal virtues and four temperaments, theological noncognitivism, the Christian Serenity Prayer, and the Acceptance and Commitment school of Cognitive and Behavioral Therapy.
Reply to schopenhauer1
I am in that boat as well, so I wonder if the category of human beings under consideration aren't just supposed to accept burden and discontentment as part of life, and deal as anyone in their situation - through resilience and endurance. Then again, this may appear contrary to the spirit of the question, i.e. why have resilience and endurance?
P.S.: I wonder if loving and being loved isn't supposed to change that attitude. On one hand, love means caring, which implies suffering. On the other hand, caring is investment in life and a sense of purpose.
You're here; we're here. Get used to it. Really, because...
In every so many ways, the world is an unsatisfactory place.
Happiness is probably not in the cards.
Nobody asked to be here, but here we are--for a while.
The cosmos doesn't care.
One can flail away at the unfairness of life's ingravescent inimicalities, but they are not going to go away. So Schop, find a place that is not too awful and endure the bad situation. It will all be over before you know it.
That is interesting. It seems like absurdism, but I wonder what specifically do you mean by the "cosmos doesn't care". That is, you do care, and you are part of the cosmos. So, some part of the cosmos cares. Just not an omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent part of it.
Because it doesn't make a bad situation worse by figuratively ramming one's head into a virtual brick wall.
I know that the OP specifically wanted a non-suicidal option, but rationally speaking, if things are that bad, why not just check out. It doesn't appear a detrimental move from that point of view. Unless the person has a family that they don't want to betray and abandon.
I wonder if loving and being loved isn't supposed to change that attitude. On one hand, love means caring, which implies suffering.
I feel the need to briefly elaborate here, only because this quote from cognitive science stays with me to this day:
'All he knows is that he is desperate for love. What he doesn't know is, that he will continue to strive [after he finds love].'
We are Beings who are never satisfied; we are trapped in a life of striving (or doing). Much like in our stream of consciousness. After one need is satisfied, it's replaced with another. I say, why not channel the energy...…..
So barring cliched suicide responses and an appeal to therapy, is there any philosophical insights for people who simply dont like the premises of life?
It's difficult to compare the premises of life to anything else because the premises of life are all we know. I think disliking the premises of life is akin to, if not the same as, disliking the premises of oneself.
Who is it that is repeating these lies and slanders about me?
Well, sure, I care--a little bit, anyway; medication helps. But the cosmos definitely doesn't give a rat's ass that I care. The reason is that the cosmos can't care. The spheres are all silent. They spin. End of their story.
Damned if I know. But I wasn't proposing suicide, anyway. I was merely suggesting one way that one can avoid making the situation worse.
My personal view: Only the most insensitive, unimaginative dolt would think this is a wonderful world after a careful perusal of life as we know it. Not just for us, but for everything else. But there is a time to rip off scabs and a time to refrain from ripping off the scabs on our wounds. Schop seems to be a serial scab ripper, if he even leaves his wounds alone long enough for a scab to form.
'All he knows is that he is desperate for love. What he doesn't know is, that he will continue to strive [after he finds love].'
Oh. He knows. :) The strife actually increases. But with this kind of strife, there is a sense of purpose. The burden is even greater, but this kind of burden may fill the sense of vacuousness of one's existence.
We are Beings who are never satisfied; we are trapped in a life of striving (or doing). Much like in our stream of consciousness. After one need is satisfied, it's replaced with another.
This kind of consummation approach to love may not be the caring devoted love that I talk about, but I may be wrong. I think that love - romantic or platonic - is supposed to make a person invest effort in someone else's well-being. It is still egotism, but not driven by consummation.
So barring cliched suicide responses and an appeal to therapy, is there any philosophical insights for people who simply dont like the premises of life?
Then you can look for and find some other ones, or failing that create your own..
Well, sure, I care--a little bit, anyway; medication helps. But the cosmos definitely doesn't give a rat's ass that I care. The reason is that the cosmos can't care. The spheres are all silent. They spin. End of their story.
I understand. I just wanted to suggest that maybe the problem isn't that the universe is not sufficiently emotive, but that emotion is not what counts towards fixing its colossal issues.
My personal view: Only the most insensitive, unimaginative dolt would think this is a wonderful world after a careful perusal of life as we know it. Not just for us, but for everything else.
Some people just don't concern themselves with life in general, but pursue personal happiness. Some of them are decent people. They just have a different focus in life. That doesn't detract from your statement, which means something different and I agree with it. But I am just saying that not everyone who likes living is the village idiot.
The premises of life: an ever ambiguous concept. However, they have plagued humanity for centuries. Firstly, I think it highly important to question what these premises may be; does one first take issue with suffering, with meaning or with the meaning of suffering? All three are intriguing paths, though the last option seems to be the most relevant here.
However, before I tread further, I must begin with the assertion (and source of solace) that it is perfectly justifiable and indeed natural to find quarrels with the premises of life. Biologically and emotionally, it is cruel. We are born, we age and we die. However, the sequestered depths of the question lie in the concept of value; if we take such issue with the premise of life, why live?
I am not going to offer a deeper, hidden insight into the preconceived meaning of life, for I do not believe there to be such. However, I will proffer that meaning is important. If we suffer and know not whence or why, we merely exist in the temporal, chaotic world. It is only when we are removed from this, when we suffer and find meaning in the suffering, that we truly live.
Unleash your inner existentialist. We may take issue with the way life is and see no meaning or logic behind it, but if this is so, the importance lies not in this area, but in creating one's own meaning.
As Nietzsche once said: 'To live is to suffer. To survive is to find meaning in the suffering.'
From a philosophical perspective, I suggest research into Camus' Myth of Sisyphus or Nietzsche's Thus Spake Zarathustra.
But I am just saying that not everyone who likes living is the village idiot.
Of course; I agree. Actually, I rather enjoy living; I don't agree with Schopenhauer1's consistently (and long-time) downbeat view. I used to feel pretty crappy about life-as-we-know-it, and as far as I can tell, life is at least as crappy as it was 20 years ago. But I feel better about life. Why? Don't know, really. I just started feeling better, one year, and it has continued on for the last 7.
But still, even though
Bitter Crank:In every so many ways, the world is an unsatisfactory place.
Happiness is probably not in the cards.
Nobody asked to be here, but here we are--for a while.
The cosmos doesn't care.
I am presently happy. That may change at any time -- bad things can happen that spoil the pleasant garden party.
I don't think there's one way to do it. It starts with recognizing and learning to accept things you cannot change. But how you get there? Up to each individual, but mostly with practice, I think.
This is the solution. Well, half of it: the other half is learning and teaching. Let both goodness and truth flow into you and out of you, through you, and you will become meaningful to the world and it will become meaningful to you.
god must be atheistJanuary 28, 2020 at 23:11#3767170 likes
is there any philosophical insights for people who simply dont like the premises of life?
By premises you mean the living space, or the space dedicated for the operation of life?
Try redecorating your apartment or home. Pink is in this year. Chinese cherry tree blossoms are a hit.
Also, try to invigorate your personal landscape with invigorating invigors. Buy a new car, start a new hobby arranging flowers or spray-painting graffiti by numbers, and improve the looks of your spouse / lover. There is an exchange program for that now, too.
Don't eat ugly food. Avoid going to the toilet to do a no. 2 job AT ALL COSTS. Never leave your pets unattended for five months in your closed apartment.
god must be atheistJanuary 28, 2020 at 23:14#3767200 likes
What about learning how to change things you cannot change now? I'd like that much better than the quietly desparate Stoic resignation to the status quo.
Not only that, but there are tons of things in life we try to change, unsuccessfully, although by rights we ought to be able to change them.
As Nietzsche once said: 'To live is to suffer. To survive is to find meaning in the suffering.'
That is true. But not the only truth. Or not the only premise. Someone I know said something much smarter: "You can live without a lover, but you can't love without a liver."
I wasn't referring to love proper, in describing that heirarchy of needs. I was referring to any kind of need, particularly needs of higher self-awareness/ consciousness, which is what we're discussing here of course.
Nevertheless your response got me to thinking, that this notion of ' spreading the love' in, say, a universal Greek style ( phila, philautia, ludus, agape, etc.) perhaps, might go a long way in achieving that end goal of interconnectedness and purpose.
In another pragmatic way, the simple example would be testing the law of attraction by virtue of engaging in life and with people sporting a smile on one's face, versus a sad, angry or melancholy one.
Life is about relationships; we are all interconnected. But it truly starts with self-confidence and self-love/philautia... .
I don't have any philosophical insights other than a sort of alternative-pragmatism. Meaning, I myself, replace therapy with hobbies and other recreational sorts of interests. Examples include anything that offers an adrenaline rush, endorphin high; riding dirt bikes, jetskiis, performing music, etc. and/or on the other side of the spectrum; meditation, hot tub, sunlight, boating, nude sunbathing, nature, etc...
I see your problem. You are made happy when engaging in physical activities. You are a matter-of-fact person, you calls them as you sees them, you probably live an honest and straight-forward life.
This is a problem for many who are of your disposition. Once the "fun" stops, all you have to fall back on is your thoughts, or socializing, or exchanging profoundly deep or very highfolutin ideas. Thjis is for the birds in your book of what makes life worthwhile living.
Abandon philosophy. Concentrate on sports, on sex, and on drinking and driving. In no time your life problem will be resolved.
Yes it indeed works. The keyboard player in our band turned me on to it many years ago. It's nothing new really. It's shared by both Eastern and Western philosophy. Do you want to know how to test it?
What about learning how to change things you cannot change now?
If there is a way to change it that you can learn, that makes it a kind of thing you can change. Learning how to make that change is just part of making the change. So in addition to the serenity to accept things you cannot change, yes, you also need courage to change things you can -- including by learning more.
Not only that, but there are tons of things in life we try to change, unsuccessfully, although by rights we ought to be able to change them.
That is the part that I've always found difficult. Accepting things you're absolutely certain you can't or shouldn't change, and acting to change things you're absolutely certain you can and should, have always seemed easy to me. The hard part seems to be the wisdom to know the difference: to tell when you can and should from when you can't or shouldn't.
I generally lean toward trying to change things you might be able to, especially when the cost of trying is low, because not trying only guarantees failure, which otherwise might have been possible.
Think of it this way. Enjoy physical activity as long as your body will allow you to... . Then like in all other seasons of one's life, you can then learn /teach in order to give back, as you reeped the benefits of life's experiences.
Surely that's got to be gratifying, particularly if you're giving back from a lifelong passionate hobby or interest.
god must be atheistJanuary 28, 2020 at 23:40#3767420 likes
If there is a way to change it that you can learn, that makes it a kind of thing you can change.
Yes. Via learning.
There are things I can't change now, NOW, NOW, NOW, before the learning process of how to change it LATER LATER LATER. If I never embark on this learning process, I will stay in a position of not being able to change it ever. That is why I inserted what I said: people jump on the bandwagon, and learn to accept things they cannot change.
By learning to accept things I cannot change, I may miss things I can change, and NOT BE ABLE TO EVER CHANGE THEM, because I learned FIRST how to accept things I can't change.
There is a temporal process here, which is very important.
There is another thing that is very important: there are things now, really, without any doubt, that I CAN NOT DO. But if I learn to do the task, I CAN DO. Learning is an integral part of changing YOURSELF, not the things you can change or the things you cannot change.
This is not trivial, @PFHorrest.
god must be atheistJanuary 28, 2020 at 23:43#3767440 likes
Think of it this way. Enjoy physical activity as long as your body will allow you to... . Then like in all other seasons of one's life, you can then learn /teach in order to give back, as you reeped the benefits of life's experiences.
Surely that's got to be gratifying, particularly if your giving back from a lifelong passionate hobby or interest.
Why are you giving me advice, @3017Amen? I haven't a complaint, and I am satisfied the way things are going... except of course with having to put up with the witless remarks of other users on this forum.
BitconnectCarlosJanuary 28, 2020 at 23:46#3767450 likes
It's funny because everybody else seems to understand the question and I just feel like a dumb person. I know my own problems. I know my friend's problems. I don't know "life's premises."
What about learning how to change things you cannot change now? I'd like that much better than the quietly desparate Stoic resignation to the status quo.
Not only that, but there are tons of things in life we try to change, unsuccessfully, although by rights we ought to be able to change them
I'm not against trying to find ways to change the seeming unchangeable, but I think it often leads to a lot of unhappiness when we want the change too desperately.
Perhaps a better way of putting my stance is learning to accept that things may be unchangeable, leaving open the possibility that they are changeable, but not letting our happiness depend on those things changing.
Seems like Stoicism really is a fad nowadays. I'll take Stoic apatheia or equanimity over ecstatic bliss, drugs, or other ego-tripping ideals.
Yes, well, just say no to drugs, kid.
On a more serious note, it's my personal experience dealing with people who are struggling with mental health and/or drug issues that's led me to realize that accepting the limitations of my ability to immediately fix anything is not the same as resignation.
On a more serious note, it's my personal experience dealing with people who are struggling with mental health and/or drug issues that's led me to realize that accepting the limitations of my ability to immediately fix anything is not the same as resignation.
And it shouldn't be; but, do you think these things can be taught? (Now I sound like @Banno)
It took 27 posts to reach an essential point of clarity. My biggest argument with philosophical discussions is lack of clear definitions. What are some or many of these "premises?" List some, and then others can reply intelligently (maybe).
I am in that boat as well, so I wonder if the category of human beings under consideration aren't just supposed to accept burden and discontentment as part of life, and deal as anyone in their situation - through resilience and endurance. Then again, this may appear contrary to the spirit of the question, i.e. why have resilience and endurance?
P.S.: I wonder if loving and being loved isn't supposed to change that attitude. On one hand, love means caring, which implies suffering. On the other hand, caring is investment in life and a sense of purpose.
Yes, I've noticed that acceptance seems to always be the "go to" for any of this. But how is this not trivial? Isn't living every day, default "accepting"? Also, what of things like sickness, and accidents? A lot of people think that by enduring this, that it enriches their life when they make it through. I don't know, for me, it just dulls life that much more that on top of the everyday dealings with other people, BS in general, societal maneuverings of the daily kind, there is the pain and suffering of being struck by enduring illness, injury, and the like.
As far as romantic love, how does this ameliorate anything? Building a loving relationship, and keeping one, are even more difficult these days than back in the day when it was an expectation (though leading to much unhappiness for staying in bad relationships). Besides, even the best of relationships can lead to pain from differences in expectations.
But anyways, in this more recent climate of shallowness, self-absorption, and short-sightedness, intimate partners are harder to come by these days. The whole caring about someone who is particularly special to you and you to them is diminishing as the years move forward. Increasingly, you're on your own in sickness and health, except for perhaps your immediate family (if they are still alive and well and in communication).
schopenhauer1January 29, 2020 at 00:57#3767800 likes
One can flail away at the unfairness of life's ingravescent inimicalities, but they are not going to go away. So Schop, find a place that is not too awful and endure the bad situation. It will all be over before you know it.
It is just bad situations heaped on each other, over and over again, sometimes the grinding down process is like a drill.. life just throws painful moment after moment.. sometimes it is like a slow turning screw, ever so steadily grinding you down.
schopenhauer1January 29, 2020 at 01:00#3767810 likes
You need to be more specific about what exactly you don't like. I can't discern it just from you mentioning "the premises of life."
You can't distill some premises on your own? Do I need to explicate?
If I had to characterize the premises, it is being thrown into the world with an orientation for "dealing with". Now just complete the sentence with all that you have experienced:
Dealing with...other people, their differing personalities, expectations, judgements, affects on your well-being
Dealing with...survival through cultural institutions and situatedness (socio-economic means)
Dealing with... illnesses, disorders, disasters, accidents, injuries
Dealing with...finding relationships, love, connection
Dealing with...cause and effect in general, the affects/effects of one's own decisions- poor or otherwise
Dealing with...one's own inability to be satisfied
Keep going if you wish. I've given you a nice starter.
The problem is that the scope of this discussion is soooo broad and we're probably experiencing different problems so that if I were to give advice it could be completely out of place or inappropriate to the situation you're dealing with.
In my case, I have... 1 or 2 main problems that I would like to fix. But I can still enjoy life. I have other areas in my life that I'm doing well with so I can sort of fall back on those.
Since I can concretely identify the issues which are causing me trouble I wouldn't really describe the problem as "the premises of life." I don't know how it is with you though.
schopenhauer1January 29, 2020 at 01:26#3767880 likes
Unleash your inner existentialist. We may take issue with the way life is and see no meaning or logic behind it, but if this is so, the importance lies not in this area, but in creating one's own meaning.
As Nietzsche once said: 'To live is to suffer. To survive is to find meaning in the suffering.'
From a philosophical perspective, I suggest research into Camus' Myth of Sisyphus or Nietzsche's Thus Spake Zarathustra.
Yes I am aware of these philosophies and am actually against them. You are aware that Nietzsche tried to overturn Schopenhauer's philosophy, correct? I think Nietzsche and Camus is simply the "accepting" crowd. I am a bit more rebellious than that in my outlook. Accepting the premises (let's just distill it to suffering in some way as you have seemed to elude to), is simply trying to justify that there is suffering in the first place. It does not turn suffering on its head- it simply enables it. It's not even clever. In other words, screw Nietzsche's idea of finding meaning in the suffering, haha.
schopenhauer1January 29, 2020 at 01:29#3767890 likes
Since I can concretely identify the issues which are causing me trouble I wouldn't really describe the problem as "the premises of life." I don't know how it is with you though.
Yeah, I guess the "dealing with" part is how it is. I tend to think everyone has to deal with those dealing withs, and people manage positively sometimes, and don't question the dealings with. Others do question it (me I guess). I asked for advice on people who don't like the dealings with besides suicide or "go see someone" (see a therapist.. making it just a psychological disposition that needs to be "fixed" through cognitive-behavioral or other type of therapy).
BitconnectCarlosJanuary 29, 2020 at 01:41#3767920 likes
I mean don't get me wrong... you can solve a lot of these problems. But when you just throw out like 8-9 different areas of life that people struggle with (romance, wealth, sickness, etc.) it's just so broad that it's tough for me to say anything meaningful. I'd much rather narrow the focus.
I think in general though some of it can be fixed and others you just can't. If something is unfixable you'll just have to come to accept it. The vexing ones are the ones that are maybe solvable.
schopenhauer1January 29, 2020 at 01:48#3767940 likes
I mean don't get me wrong... you can solve a lot of these problems. But when you just throw out like 8-9 different areas of life that people struggle with (romance, wealth, sickness, etc.) it's just so broad that it's tough for me to say anything meaningful. I'd much rather narrow the focus.
I think in general though some of it can be fixed and others you just can't. If something is unfixable you'll just have to come to accept it. The vexing ones are the ones that are maybe solvable.
Well you are assuming this is about fixing something. That might be the wrong approach. The question is "What if you don't like the premises of life?" So it already points to the idea that accepting isn't even part of the equation. That would be more like, "How can I improve my life?" That would be someone who is open to the idea that there is some sort of positive building going on, that should be sought after. This is more like someone who knows well ideas like "self-improvement" and doesn't even accept the premises themselves, that others might find can be "improved" upon.
BitconnectCarlosJanuary 29, 2020 at 01:58#3767970 likes
This is more like someone who knows well ideas like "self-improvement" and doesn't even accept the premises themselves, that others might find can be "improved" upon.
Could you give me an example?
I, personally, have identified obstacles to achieving greater happiness. I am working on breaking those down. I think if I were to break them down I would be thrilled and achieve a much higher degree of consistent happiness.
The problem in our discussion is that "the premises of life" seem to be extremely broad. Some of them might bother you, but not bother other people so it's not an inevitability.
The example is exactly someone who would ask the question, "What if you don't like the premises of life?" Nothing more or less.
I guess I can explain by going back again to dealing with. An analogy might be something like a game. If you were on a game that you can't get out of except through death, well there are a couple options. Some people "accept" the game (what many people including you suggest), and then offer ways to get better at certain aspects of it. But then there are some people who simply don't like the premises, the very game itself. Yes, they know there are people with ways to "improve" how to play it, but they don't like the fact that they are dealing with the game, whether improving it or not, in the first place. I also think, as you suggest, that improving doesn't necessarily apply to all individuals, but that is a different debate. Let's just stick to the analogy of improving aspects of the game vs. not even wanting to deal with the improving or dealing with the circumstances of the game in the first place.
BitconnectCarlosJanuary 29, 2020 at 02:14#3768030 likes
Let's just stick to the analogy of improving aspects of the game vs. not even wanting to deal with the improving or dealing with the circumstances of the game in the first place.
Well, if you're stuck in the game you might as well make the best of it... the rewards could be quite great. I think the rewards could blow you away. I do believe the reason for the game is the reward (to be specific, it's love.)
It doesn't really matter if you accept that you're in the game or not, or that you like the game itself or not... you're here, and you have one shot at this game (as far as we know) so pursue those rewards!
schopenhauer1January 29, 2020 at 02:17#3768060 likes
Enjoy! Life is for enjoying! — A Seagull
Say that to someone extremely ill. Is the illness supposed to be good because if one gets through it life seems better? You gotta do better than that.
Clearly you are stuck inside your own negative premises. From which there is no escape without motivation.
BitconnectCarlosJanuary 29, 2020 at 02:26#3768090 likes
Well, if you spend all day hating the game and marinating on these thoughts don't be surprised if you find yourself in misery. Some thoughts that you have - and these thoughts may reflect reality - just aren't helpful and you should discard them.
In the end, I'd rather be a clueless pollyanna than live like Schopenhauer. But it's your call.
An analogy might be something like a game. If you were on a game that you can't get out of except through death, well there are a couple options. Some people "accept" the game (what many people including you suggest), and then offer ways to get better at certain aspects of it. But then there are some people who simply don't like the premises, the very game itself. Yes, they know there are people with ways to "improve" how to play it, but they don't like the fact that they are dealing with the game, whether improving it or not, in the first place.
This is a statement though, not a question. The request for clarity was (or should be) over what the question means "What if you don't like the premises of life?". What does the 'what' mean?
What [is the case] if you don't like the premises of life? - Well that's simple, the case is that you're going to either have a miserable life, or you're going to change your mind about the premises.
What [should one do] if you don't like the premises of life? - This depends entirely on one's objective, you cannot derive an ought from an is without objective. The 'is' is the way the world is, the premises of life as you put it, but we cannot derive an 'ought' from that alone, you need to provide an objective - "how to I get from A to B?" is an answerable question, "where should I go from A?" is not.
My advice - just lie down where you are. If that displeases you, think of something which would please you more and do that. If the thought of doing something distasteful simply because it displeases you less than some other thing displeases you, then think something else, something which displeases you less. Your thoughts do not arrive out of the ether fully formed that you have to just accept them by default. They are constructed by your brain to suit the behaviour you put them to. Your feelings of displeasure with the premises of life are not a rational judgement which you must treat as sacrosanct. They're just the story your brain thinks best explains your behaviour and sensory inputs. Change your behaviour and sensory input and your brain will change the story.
unenlightenedJanuary 29, 2020 at 11:35#3769240 likes
As if liking and not liking is something other than life. Reminds me of the horror story of the man who was disgusted by the idea that his body contained a skeleton, and eventually found a doctor to remove it...
I do not see a theme song on the thread. Take your pick:
So barring cliched suicide responses and an appeal to therapy, is there any philosophical insights for people who simply dont like the premises of life?
As if liking and not liking is something other than life. Reminds me of the horror story of the man who was disgusted by the idea that his body contained a skeleton, and eventually found a doctor to remove it...
That's a perfect analogy here.
schopenhauer1January 29, 2020 at 14:13#3769470 likes
My advice - just lie down where you are. If that displeases you, think of something which would please you more and do that. If the thought of doing something distasteful simply because it displeases you less than some other thing displeases you, then think something else, something which displeases you less. Your thoughts do not arrive out of the ether fully formed that you have to just accept them by default. They are constructed by your brain to suit the behaviour you put them to. Your feelings of displeasure with the premises of life are not a rational judgement which you must treat as sacrosanct. They're just the story your brain thinks best explains your behaviour and sensory inputs. Change your behaviour and sensory input and your brain will change the story.
The disposition is not about "change your behavior". That is implying that something should or can be changed. Let us say that really, there are people that simply don't like the premises of life, no matter what. It's not that they don't think they can't "improve" some goals in this or that (by simply living, one has to do that in some way, so that's not really in question), but the OVERALL game itself- the fact that this improvement is or has to even taking place. All of it is not liked.
It's a conundrum. And we like to think of life now as a machine that can be corrected. Thus therapists and such are somehow the machine service people that ensure the outliers are running smoothly. There's no philosophical way out. Therapists have to be aboard the accepting crew. They need to account for well-adjustment in society. Nothing to see here.. Keep moving. Don't complain. YOU are the problem. This machine needs to run.
schopenhauer1January 29, 2020 at 14:23#3769500 likes
Ironically, you can be a miserable piece of shit in your mood, treat people like shit, but not openly criticize the premises of life, and because you are at least "contributing" to the game are deemed fine and worthy.
If you are a nice, caring, friendly, person but openly criticize the premises of life, even if you are "contributing" you are deemed as unworthy. It doesn't matter your character, how you treat people. It matters that you don't denigrate the game itself, you contribute willingly and fully. It's all about accepting the premises or not openly criticizing it to be accepted. I see it here. And of course in open real world society.
schopenhauer1January 29, 2020 at 14:30#3769510 likes
Clearly you are stuck inside your own negative premises. From which there is no escape without motivation.
No I mean it. Let's say you have a severe illness that completely ravages your body and internal organs. Let's say you slowly recover. What does one do with that? Oh boy, it's just a raw deal? Yep, yes it is. But what else is that? Well, that is what happens in a contingent universe? Oh yes, real comfort food there. Well, getting over harsh conditions, strengthens ones disposition? Besides, that one might have come out weakened, not strengthened physically, I don't know why that should be a sign that one is better off to now have dealt with more pain. It is just more grist for the mill. You are the grist in this case. The mill didn't like you very much. Keep moving. Keep working. You need to survive again in "normal" conditions. No one gives a shit. That's life. Just accept it. Try to improve yourself. Take stock. Look at the premises and do better at abiding by them. You see the theme I am getting at? Yeah it is just a bit cynical, but that might be what is called for here.
there are people that simply don't like the premises of life, no matter what. It's not that they don't think they can't "improve" some goals in this or that (by simply living, one has to do that in some way, so that's not really in question), but the OVERALL game itself- the fact that this improvement is or has to even taking place. All of it is not liked.
You might assert as much, but the evidence is against you. What evidence we have (and it's reasonably compelling) is that what you like and dislike, your dispositions, are models your brain creates to suit your circumstances. You can fly in the face of evidence all you like, make up your own little fantasy world, but it simply is not the case that a person has dispositions that are not malleable by behaviour.
It's like you're arguing "what can you do if you're born too heavy to move?". You're just not. It's factually incorrect that any newborn is too heavy to move so the problem doesn't exist. It's factually incorrect that anyone is unchanging disposed to dislike the very idea of life. People's dispositions can, and regularly are, changed by behaviour.
If don't even want to make those changes, then what on earth are you asking for advice about? What kind of response do you think I'd get if I wrote a dozen threads whining about how I wasn't yet a millionaire but refused any and all advice about how to become one on the grounds that it would entail me actually having to do something?
If don't even want to make those changes, then what on earth are you asking for advice about? What kind of response do you think I'd get if I wrote a dozen threads whining about how I wasn't yet a millionaire but refused any and all advice about how to become one on the grounds that it would entail me actually having to do something?
Unnecessary tone..
Anyways, thats the conundrum. The millionare analogy is not apt as in that case someone wants to be a millionaire. The premises of life are set. One has to abide them or die. There is no choice excepting suicide. The only choices are to accept the game. Thats no choice though. You are looking at playing it well or not. Im looking at it from not even accepting the terms, even if they are set.
Clearly you are stuck inside your own negative premises. From which there is no escape without motivation. — A Seagull
No I mean it
It is like encountering someone who is stuck down a well and you offer to assist them in climbing out but instead they insist that although they are miserable they like it down there and invite you to join them. One can only walk away sighing and laughing in equal measure.
The millionare analogy is not apt as in that case someone wants to be a millionaire.
Right, which is why I asked why you're writing posts. You want something, some result which is not the one you currently have. If you're satisfied with what you currently feel, then there's no need to do anything. If you're not satisfied with how you currently feel then you are, by definition, wanting of some other state of mind. So you 'want' something (some other state of mind) but you're not prepared to take any action at all to get it.
We don't need to invoke the 'premises of life' to explain how that doesn't make sense. That just doesn't make any sense simply according to the laws of cause and effect,
As if liking and not liking is something other than life.
:up:
Reminds me of the horror story of the man who was disgusted by the idea that his body contained a skeleton, and eventually found a doctor to remove it...
It's funny because everybody else seems to understand the question and I just feel like a dumb person. I know my own problems. I know my friend's problems. I don't know "life's premises."
No... I'm pretty sure that you're just feeling alone in being reasonable. The chances these guys are actually talking about the same things has got to be zero.
schopenhauer1January 29, 2020 at 18:31#3769940 likes
Reply to Isaac
Going back to game analogy...
If you dont want to play the game, but the only option is to try to play the game better, and taking suicide off the table, then what? Thats the conundrum. Its not asking for improvement plans, its giving the scenario.
Nevertheless your response got me to thinking, that this notion of ' spreading the love' in, say, a universal Greek style ( phila, philautia, ludus, agape, etc.) perhaps, might go a long way in achieving that end goal of interconnectedness and purpose.
If self-love is experienced properly, as motivation for industriousness, enlightenment, responsibility and self-respect, then I can agree. The problem is, self-love can take any turn. The subject is self-love's own affirmator. Overall however, I do agree that without self-focus and self-awareness, striving to harmonize and assist is futile.
Its not asking for improvement plans, its giving the scenario.
Then, yes. That is the scenario, you're correct. You have two choices; don't play the game, or change the way you feel about the game (which you could see as taking the first move). I mean what did you expect? For us to change predicate logic? If you've only got two choices you have to take one of them, that's what only having two choices means, is that what you wanted people here to confirm?
schopenhauer1January 29, 2020 at 18:40#3769980 likes
If you've only got two choices you have to take one of them, that's what only having two choices means, is that what you wanted people here to confirm?
Its the implication for thise living in that binary choice...
This is the solution. Well, half of it: the other half is learning and teaching. Let both goodness and truth flow into you and out of you, through you, and you will become meaningful to the world and it will become meaningful to you.
I can subscribe to this. However, most people, including me, also need a sense of potency to pursue an idea. In the face of life's factors, a person may decide that empathy and enlightenment is futile. I can subscribe to love anyway, because it doesn't really require affirmation of successful outcome to be practiced.
Its the implication for thise living in that binary choice...
There's no implication beyond the simple fact that one option must be chosen. Being born requires you to chose to continue to live or not. If you prefer life, then continue, if you don't, don't.
Again, I'm not seeing the philosophical question. One chooses the most preferable out of the options available. Isn't that obvious? I know you'd rather have not been put in this position, but that's not one of the choices, so that's not relevant. It's like me saying I'd rather have been a wolf. What's the philosophical investigation attached to 'things we'd rather were the case'?
A lot of people think that by enduring this, that it enriches their life when they make it through. I don't know, for me, it just dulls life that much more that on top of the everyday dealings with other people, BS in general, societal maneuverings of the daily kind, there is the pain and suffering of being struck by enduring illness, injury, and the like.
I didn't mean to overcome discomfort through self-improvement, but to suffer through discomfort resiliently (as if stoically, but not really.) In other words, a possible solution is a non-solution.
As far as romantic love, how does this ameliorate anything? Building a loving relationship, and keeping one, are even more difficult these days than back in the day when it was an expectation (though leading to much unhappiness for staying in bad relationships). Besides, even the best of relationships can lead to pain from differences in expectations.
I offered love as motivation, not relief. To remedy the sense of purposelessness, not the sense of helplessness. Love will definitely increase the actual hardship many-fold.
But anyways, in this more recent climate of shallowness, self-absorption, and short-sightedness, intimate partners are harder to come by these days. The whole caring about someone who is particularly special to you and you to them is diminishing as the years move forward. Increasingly, you're on your own in sickness and health, except for perhaps your immediate family (if they are still alive and well and in communication).
I agree. This probably steers into a politically and culturally focused topic, but indeed, people appear to be living isolated. I suspect that there are far reaching consequences - lack of empathy, no sense of responsibility, etc. But I may be over-dramatizing. It certainly doesn't apply to everybody.
If you are a nice, caring, friendly, person but openly criticize the premises of life, even if you are "contributing" you are deemed as unworthy. It doesn't matter your character, how you treat people.
Hey Schop1!
Being a glass half-full (not half-empty) guy myself, and although perhaps a little idealistic, I don't think that's really the case there. Now, unless you have a particular happenstance in mind, I'm not sure I'm understanding your beef.
Just common sense say's that critique of, really anything, both on a micro and macro scale is what helps improve society and the human condition. By living in the free world, it goes without saying we are free to better ourselves (or not better ourselves) not only for our own benefit, but for the benefit of others as a whole.
Now I certainly get how Government and the 'corporate america mentality' tends to perpetuate, what I'll call, the tin-solder routine, where conformity rules the day. But there again, it depends on what you're referring to... , otherwise if I join a team, I have to play by the rules. And if I join a team whose internal philosophy is not compatible with mine, I leave and move on.
Sure, agreed.. Please keep in mind all the other so-called classifications of Love viz ancient Greek philosophy.. And accordingly, not only love of self ( and basic self esteem) but also love of friendships, colleagues, family, nature,, et al are equally important.
How can one rebel against the premises of life if one still continues to live? By living one is accepting, it is purely a matter of how content one can be in that acceptance.
Not many would be able to say they appreciate all the premises of a human life, but since there is no one to hold accountable, in my view, it is rather futile to attempt a rebellion against brute fact. Perhaps you find it difficult, but it simply isn’t possible to act against the laws of nature (biological and physical).
Philosophically, is it not more amenable to accept what we can not change and thus discuss the areas in which it is possible to make an impact?
So barring cliched suicide responses and an appeal to therapy, is there any philosophical insights for people who simply dont like the premises of life?
I have found this attitude generally boils down to wanting things to be different than they are. And when it comes to changing the universe, versus changing yourself, the latter is far easier and more effective.
Reply to schopenhauer1 To respond to your original question, I think it's important to ask oneself whether any of these premises are self-imposed. It may or not may not apply to you specifically, but I have noticed a lot of people who struggle with depression, suicidal ideas, etc. are withering away in a prison of their own construction.
schopenhauer1February 04, 2020 at 13:59#3786500 likes
The premises of life are what are generally needed to survive, sustain, maintain, be entertained in a human existence. As I've stated earlier:
Dealing with...other people, their differing personalities, expectations, judgements, affects on your well-being
Dealing with...survival through cultural institutions and situatedness (socio-economic means)
Dealing with... illnesses, disorders, disasters, accidents, injuries
Dealing with...finding relationships, love, connection
Dealing with...cause and effect in general, the affects/effects of one's own decisions- poor or otherwise
Dealing with...one's own inability to be satisfied
So what if some people don't want to die, but don't want the dealing with either? Yes, there are coping strategies, but having to do any of it, improvement regimes or otherwise, are not wanted to be entered in. Of course one is shit out of luck. That is the conundrum for someone who doesn't want any of it.
I was looking for some interesting conversation on the conundrum rather than disdain for the idea itself which I'm well aware people on the forum have a biased against. We all know, pull yourself up by your bootstraps and improve yourself is the default advice here. Is there any more than this? Anything of more intriguing ideas about pessimism in general or this viewpoint in a broader perspective? Afterall it is questioning the human enterprise itself, I would think that can provoke more interesting things than "You make your own prison and you must improve yourself." Anything more global than its the pessimists fault?
I am interested in why you consider those things to be premises of life, which I consider to mean either inescapable or so important that the lack of it results in death.
Are those things really inescapable? Do they really result in death when they are lacking? Or is this what our perceptions, mostly influenced by the sort of society we live in, are pressured into believing?
PantagruelFebruary 04, 2020 at 14:22#3786600 likes
I was looking for some interesting conversation on the conundrum rather than disdain for the idea itself
Well, speaking only from personal experience here, I have entertained this question seriously at several points in my life. At those time it was certainly what I would call an existential crisis of the highest degree...that's putting it mildly. So I don't really think it is fair for you to characterize my response as disdainful. Speaking as someone who has lived through it, that is my answer.
My experience further, is that the answers you like least are often the ones you need to think about most.
DingoJonesFebruary 04, 2020 at 15:40#3786720 likes
He means all the things you necessarily “agree” to by being alive. I think he might even include All the things you might experience aa well, if pressed.
So what if some people don't want to die, but don't want the dealing with either?... I was looking for some interesting conversation on the conundrum rather than disdain for the idea itself
You haven't explained what you're asking for. That's why you're being met with disdain. There's not even a question there because you've rejected phrasing it as "what does one do if one doesn't like the premises of life...?" because you're not prepared to do anything about it.
So all you're left with is making a statement. "You have to either accept the premises of life or die".
Yes. That's right. That is correct. You have correctly identified the nature of life. Well done. You can write that down in your book of 'things that are the case'. Honestly, what more is there to discuss. It's a brute fact. You're not prepared to entertain any suggestions of anything you can actually do about it, or even think about it, so what else is there other than agree that it is indeed the case?
So what if some people don't want to die, but don't want the dealing with either? Yes, there are coping strategies, but having to do any of it, improvement regimes or otherwise, are not wanted to be entered in. Of course one is shit out of luck. That is the conundrum for someone who doesn't want any of it.
I was looking for some interesting conversation on the conundrum rather than disdain for the idea itself which I'm well aware people on the forum have a biased against.
But what more can really be said other than, "you're shit out of luck"? The premises of life are already present, you're already caught up 'playing the game'. If suicide is off the table (why?), then there is no option but to continue coping with and dealing with. The conundrum is essentially, "I don't suffer enough to lethally harm myself, yet enough to where I don't enjoy living". Well yeah, then you're fucked. You could find a distraction. Gaming? Gambling? Sex? Get a girlfriend? Fry your brain with drugs? Rig up some contraption that feeds you and toilets you? But you don't want suggestions on coping methods, so I'm not sure what's left to say. It's a terrible situation.
schopenhauer1February 06, 2020 at 21:41#3795610 likes
delete
schopenhauer1February 08, 2020 at 23:56#3803990 likes
Yes. That's right. That is correct. You have correctly identified the nature of life. Well done. You can write that down in your book of 'things that are the case'. Honestly, what more is there to discuss. It's a brute fact. You're not prepared to entertain any suggestions of anything you can actually do about it, or even think about it, so what else is there other than agree that it is indeed the case?
Yes, it has a lot of implications. Politically it means we are not really "for" ourselves as the only choice we can make is moving up or down a spectrum of (for the pessimist) unwanted realities.
Are those things really inescapable? Do they really result in death when they are lacking? Or is this what our perceptions, mostly influenced by the sort of society we live in, are pressured into believing?
But what more can really be said other than, "you're shit out of luck"? The premises of life are already present, you're already caught up 'playing the game'. If suicide is off the table (why?), then there is no option but to continue coping with and dealing with. The conundrum is essentially, "I don't suffer enough to lethally harm myself, yet enough to where I don't enjoy living". Well yeah, then you're fucked. You could find a distraction. Gaming? Gambling? Sex? Get a girlfriend? Fry your brain with drugs? Rig up some contraption that feeds you and toilets you? But you don't want suggestions on coping methods, so I'm not sure what's left to say. It's a terrible situation.
No I wouldn't advocate a Wall-E world either where one exists to be fed and defecate. But isn't that interesting, all this economic striving for essentially just that, but we need more in life than basic necessities. Yet, this need is predicated on things that one might not want to deal with in the first place. There is no 'no option" button. Reality is such that fortune, one's own decisions, society, other people, survival (i.e. socio-economic circumstances), and contingency in general all come together and one has to "deal with it" or die.
What is the alternative? Nothingness? That sounds incredibly boring to me. I'll go with living even though it's sometimes regurgitated ass scabs. Still way more interesting than nothingness.
Yes, it has a lot of implications. Politically it means we are not really "for" ourselves as the only choice we can make is moving up or down a spectrum of (for the pessimist) unwanted realities.
What would ""for" ourselves" even mean in this context? Being 'for' something is about objectives, but you're not talking about objectives here (you are discontent, so becoming content would be a perfectly accurate objective). What you're talking about here is mean. Your objective is to remove discontent. That in itself isn't a problem. The problem is that you refuse any means by which to do that.
Are those things really inescapable? Do they really result in death when they are lacking? Or is this what our perceptions, mostly influenced by the sort of society we live in, are pressured into believing? — Tzeentch
So how aren't they?
A few of the things you listed, like "dealing with other people', "survival through cultural institutions", "finding relationships".
If one doesn't like these premises, what is stopping one from adopting a life that doesn't involve them?
"Dealing with one's own inability to be satisfied", is this truly a premise? Don't you know anybody that is satisfied in life? And if you do, what makes them different from you?
You also name things like "cause & effect" and "randomness". I suppose those are pretty much inescapable. Though, perception plays a large role in how we experience these factors. The Stoics have said a lot about this topic.
I think many of the things seen as "premises" are actually choices.
IvoryBlackBishopFebruary 09, 2020 at 22:20#3807580 likes
Reply to schopenhauer1
I'm not sure, but I find that 'nihilstic' conclusions defeat the purpose of philosophy to begin with.
IvoryBlackBishopFebruary 09, 2020 at 22:21#3807600 likes
Reply to Wallows
Confucianism is dated, however I've found that some of the principles are reoccurring, such as in more modern treatise on civilization, or even etiquette.
Something akin to Oliver Wendell Holmes might be a better example, at least as far as the philosophy of modern law and civilization is concerned.
Personally, I liked Rawls a lot. I like Confucianism because it leads to stable outcomes, as a premise of the very philosophy.
IvoryBlackBishopFebruary 09, 2020 at 22:26#3807640 likes
Reply to Wallows
I've heard of Rawls, I'm not sure how he compares.
Interestingly, the "philosophy" behind etiquette (e.x. Emily Post) has some similarities to Confucius' philosophy, such as etiquette being related to holding civilization together, though some might say it's overly "conformist" and not always applicable to real life situations (though the philosophy is that etiquette is fluid and adaptable in form, and does change with the time, though the underlying principles are universal, rather than pure "formalism" as is often stereotypically portrayed).
Interestingly, the "philosophy" behind etiquette (e.x. Emily Post) has some similarities to Confucius' philosophy, such as etiquette being related to holding civilization together, though some might say it's overly "conformist" and not always applicable to real life situations (though the philosophy is that etiquette is fluid and adaptable in form, and does change with the time, though the underlying principles are universal, rather than pure "formalism" as is often stereotypically portrayed).
Comments (123)
It's kind of ironic you mentioned this, I was just reading today that Millennial's are now considered the therapy generation.
I don't have any philosophical insights other than a sort of alternative-pragmatism. Meaning, I myself, replace therapy with hobbies and other recreational sorts of interests. Examples include anything that offers an adrenaline rush, endorphin high; riding dirt bikes, jetskiis, performing music, etc. and/or on the other side of the spectrum; meditation, hot tub, sunlight, boating, nude sunbathing, nature, etc...
If nothing else it's way to fellowship and stay connected.
Forrest....that's pretty rockin dude! Love the website!!!
How much of Confucianism is in your philosophy? Or major influences?
Very little. I'm not particularly familiar with Confuscianism and didn't find much inspiring in what I have read of it. Major influences (on that particular topic) are Pragmatism, Absurdism, Buddhism, Stoicism, the Greek cardinal virtues and four temperaments, theological noncognitivism, the Christian Serenity Prayer, and the Acceptance and Commitment school of Cognitive and Behavioral Therapy.
Wow, that's quite a mouthful. My attention span will have to be worked on to focus on the gist of your philosophy.
I am in that boat as well, so I wonder if the category of human beings under consideration aren't just supposed to accept burden and discontentment as part of life, and deal as anyone in their situation - through resilience and endurance. Then again, this may appear contrary to the spirit of the question, i.e. why have resilience and endurance?
P.S.: I wonder if loving and being loved isn't supposed to change that attitude. On one hand, love means caring, which implies suffering. On the other hand, caring is investment in life and a sense of purpose.
In every so many ways, the world is an unsatisfactory place.
Happiness is probably not in the cards.
Nobody asked to be here, but here we are--for a while.
The cosmos doesn't care.
One can flail away at the unfairness of life's ingravescent inimicalities, but they are not going to go away. So Schop, find a place that is not too awful and endure the bad situation. It will all be over before you know it.
Quoting simeonz
Because it doesn't make a bad situation worse by figuratively ramming one's head into a virtual brick wall.
That is interesting. It seems like absurdism, but I wonder what specifically do you mean by the "cosmos doesn't care". That is, you do care, and you are part of the cosmos. So, some part of the cosmos cares. Just not an omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent part of it.
I know that the OP specifically wanted a non-suicidal option, but rationally speaking, if things are that bad, why not just check out. It doesn't appear a detrimental move from that point of view. Unless the person has a family that they don't want to betray and abandon.
I feel the need to briefly elaborate here, only because this quote from cognitive science stays with me to this day:
'All he knows is that he is desperate for love. What he doesn't know is, that he will continue to strive [after he finds love].'
We are Beings who are never satisfied; we are trapped in a life of striving (or doing). Much like in our stream of consciousness. After one need is satisfied, it's replaced with another. I say, why not channel the energy...…..
It's difficult to compare the premises of life to anything else because the premises of life are all we know. I think disliking the premises of life is akin to, if not the same as, disliking the premises of oneself.
Who is it that is repeating these lies and slanders about me?
Well, sure, I care--a little bit, anyway; medication helps. But the cosmos definitely doesn't give a rat's ass that I care. The reason is that the cosmos can't care. The spheres are all silent. They spin. End of their story.
Quoting simeonz
Damned if I know. But I wasn't proposing suicide, anyway. I was merely suggesting one way that one can avoid making the situation worse.
My personal view: Only the most insensitive, unimaginative dolt would think this is a wonderful world after a careful perusal of life as we know it. Not just for us, but for everything else. But there is a time to rip off scabs and a time to refrain from ripping off the scabs on our wounds. Schop seems to be a serial scab ripper, if he even leaves his wounds alone long enough for a scab to form.
Shirley there must be fresh and novel methods!
And it does. We don't send people who want to kill themselves to prison!
Oh. He knows. :) The strife actually increases. But with this kind of strife, there is a sense of purpose. The burden is even greater, but this kind of burden may fill the sense of vacuousness of one's existence.
Quoting 3017amen This kind of consummation approach to love may not be the caring devoted love that I talk about, but I may be wrong. I think that love - romantic or platonic - is supposed to make a person invest effort in someone else's well-being. It is still egotism, but not driven by consummation.
Then you can look for and find some other ones, or failing that create your own..
Enjoy! Life is for enjoying!
I understand. I just wanted to suggest that maybe the problem isn't that the universe is not sufficiently emotive, but that emotion is not what counts towards fixing its colossal issues.
Quoting Bitter Crank Some people just don't concern themselves with life in general, but pursue personal happiness. Some of them are decent people. They just have a different focus in life. That doesn't detract from your statement, which means something different and I agree with it. But I am just saying that not everyone who likes living is the village idiot.
Wrong on two counts.
Emotion comes first.
Every profession works for...society
Creativity may be a decent conduit through which to sublimate ones suffering.
I see abstract thought combined with rudamentary logic as the highest expression of creativity.
Don't ask me why, as you need to figure that out.
You need to be more specific about what exactly you don't like. I can't discern it just from you mentioning "the premises of life."
Then you need to readjust your expectations. Or be forever unhappy.
How do you do that?
However, before I tread further, I must begin with the assertion (and source of solace) that it is perfectly justifiable and indeed natural to find quarrels with the premises of life. Biologically and emotionally, it is cruel. We are born, we age and we die. However, the sequestered depths of the question lie in the concept of value; if we take such issue with the premise of life, why live?
I am not going to offer a deeper, hidden insight into the preconceived meaning of life, for I do not believe there to be such. However, I will proffer that meaning is important. If we suffer and know not whence or why, we merely exist in the temporal, chaotic world. It is only when we are removed from this, when we suffer and find meaning in the suffering, that we truly live.
Unleash your inner existentialist. We may take issue with the way life is and see no meaning or logic behind it, but if this is so, the importance lies not in this area, but in creating one's own meaning.
As Nietzsche once said: 'To live is to suffer. To survive is to find meaning in the suffering.'
From a philosophical perspective, I suggest research into Camus' Myth of Sisyphus or Nietzsche's Thus Spake Zarathustra.
Of course; I agree. Actually, I rather enjoy living; I don't agree with Schopenhauer1's consistently (and long-time) downbeat view. I used to feel pretty crappy about life-as-we-know-it, and as far as I can tell, life is at least as crappy as it was 20 years ago. But I feel better about life. Why? Don't know, really. I just started feeling better, one year, and it has continued on for the last 7.
But still, even though
I am presently happy. That may change at any time -- bad things can happen that spoil the pleasant garden party.
I don't think there's one way to do it. It starts with recognizing and learning to accept things you cannot change. But how you get there? Up to each individual, but mostly with practice, I think.
This is the solution. Well, half of it: the other half is learning and teaching. Let both goodness and truth flow into you and out of you, through you, and you will become meaningful to the world and it will become meaningful to you.
By premises you mean the living space, or the space dedicated for the operation of life?
Try redecorating your apartment or home. Pink is in this year. Chinese cherry tree blossoms are a hit.
Also, try to invigorate your personal landscape with invigorating invigors. Buy a new car, start a new hobby arranging flowers or spray-painting graffiti by numbers, and improve the looks of your spouse / lover. There is an exchange program for that now, too.
Don't eat ugly food. Avoid going to the toilet to do a no. 2 job AT ALL COSTS. Never leave your pets unattended for five months in your closed apartment.
What about learning how to change things you cannot change now? I'd like that much better than the quietly desparate Stoic resignation to the status quo.
Not only that, but there are tons of things in life we try to change, unsuccessfully, although by rights we ought to be able to change them.
Yes, as he may as well speak for himself.
Carl, that would be too easy. If he doesn't like something, and he tells you what that is, all you have to do to cure him is to say "stop doing that."
That is true. But not the only truth. Or not the only premise. Someone I know said something much smarter: "You can live without a lover, but you can't love without a liver."
Seems like Stoicism really is a fad nowadays. I'll take Stoic apatheia or equanimity over ecstatic bliss, drugs, or other ego-tripping ideals.
I wasn't referring to love proper, in describing that heirarchy of needs. I was referring to any kind of need, particularly needs of higher self-awareness/ consciousness, which is what we're discussing here of course.
Nevertheless your response got me to thinking, that this notion of ' spreading the love' in, say, a universal Greek style ( phila, philautia, ludus, agape, etc.) perhaps, might go a long way in achieving that end goal of interconnectedness and purpose.
In another pragmatic way, the simple example would be testing the law of attraction by virtue of engaging in life and with people sporting a smile on one's face, versus a sad, angry or melancholy one.
Life is about relationships; we are all interconnected. But it truly starts with self-confidence and self-love/philautia... .
Thoughts?
Is that real?
I see your problem. You are made happy when engaging in physical activities. You are a matter-of-fact person, you calls them as you sees them, you probably live an honest and straight-forward life.
This is a problem for many who are of your disposition. Once the "fun" stops, all you have to fall back on is your thoughts, or socializing, or exchanging profoundly deep or very highfolutin ideas. Thjis is for the birds in your book of what makes life worthwhile living.
Abandon philosophy. Concentrate on sports, on sex, and on drinking and driving. In no time your life problem will be resolved.
Easy does it, dude. I just smoked a cig, do what makes you OK, as long as law-abiding.
Yes it indeed works. The keyboard player in our band turned me on to it many years ago. It's nothing new really. It's shared by both Eastern and Western philosophy. Do you want to know how to test it?
No, not in some selfish or egotistical sense. Just how it works, so I can spot people who exploit it. I'm paranoid that way...
If there is a way to change it that you can learn, that makes it a kind of thing you can change. Learning how to make that change is just part of making the change. So in addition to the serenity to accept things you cannot change, yes, you also need courage to change things you can -- including by learning more.
Quoting god must be atheist
That is the part that I've always found difficult. Accepting things you're absolutely certain you can't or shouldn't change, and acting to change things you're absolutely certain you can and should, have always seemed easy to me. The hard part seems to be the wisdom to know the difference: to tell when you can and should from when you can't or shouldn't.
I generally lean toward trying to change things you might be able to, especially when the cost of trying is low, because not trying only guarantees failure, which otherwise might have been possible.
Think of it this way. Enjoy physical activity as long as your body will allow you to... . Then like in all other seasons of one's life, you can then learn /teach in order to give back, as you reeped the benefits of life's experiences.
Surely that's got to be gratifying, particularly if you're giving back from a lifelong passionate hobby or interest.
Yes. Via learning.
There are things I can't change now, NOW, NOW, NOW, before the learning process of how to change it LATER LATER LATER. If I never embark on this learning process, I will stay in a position of not being able to change it ever. That is why I inserted what I said: people jump on the bandwagon, and learn to accept things they cannot change.
By learning to accept things I cannot change, I may miss things I can change, and NOT BE ABLE TO EVER CHANGE THEM, because I learned FIRST how to accept things I can't change.
There is a temporal process here, which is very important.
There is another thing that is very important: there are things now, really, without any doubt, that I CAN NOT DO. But if I learn to do the task, I CAN DO. Learning is an integral part of changing YOURSELF, not the things you can change or the things you cannot change.
This is not trivial, @PFHorrest.
Why are you giving me advice, @3017Amen? I haven't a complaint, and I am satisfied the way things are going... except of course with having to put up with the witless remarks of other users on this forum.
It's funny because everybody else seems to understand the question and I just feel like a dumb person. I know my own problems. I know my friend's problems. I don't know "life's premises."
You're fine I was just clarifying your concern relative to the remarks you made about physical finitude.
I'm not against trying to find ways to change the seeming unchangeable, but I think it often leads to a lot of unhappiness when we want the change too desperately.
Perhaps a better way of putting my stance is learning to accept that things may be unchangeable, leaving open the possibility that they are changeable, but not letting our happiness depend on those things changing.
Quoting Wallows
Yes, well, just say no to drugs, kid.
On a more serious note, it's my personal experience dealing with people who are struggling with mental health and/or drug issues that's led me to realize that accepting the limitations of my ability to immediately fix anything is not the same as resignation.
Thanks, as corny as this sounds, I needed to hear that.
Quoting Artemis
And it shouldn't be; but, do you think these things can be taught? (Now I sound like @Banno)
It took 27 posts to reach an essential point of clarity. My biggest argument with philosophical discussions is lack of clear definitions. What are some or many of these "premises?" List some, and then others can reply intelligently (maybe).
At the age of 83, the best advice I could give is
Quoting The Abyss
That's gotta be an improvement...
How bad was it?
[/img]
Yes, I've noticed that acceptance seems to always be the "go to" for any of this. But how is this not trivial? Isn't living every day, default "accepting"? Also, what of things like sickness, and accidents? A lot of people think that by enduring this, that it enriches their life when they make it through. I don't know, for me, it just dulls life that much more that on top of the everyday dealings with other people, BS in general, societal maneuverings of the daily kind, there is the pain and suffering of being struck by enduring illness, injury, and the like.
As far as romantic love, how does this ameliorate anything? Building a loving relationship, and keeping one, are even more difficult these days than back in the day when it was an expectation (though leading to much unhappiness for staying in bad relationships). Besides, even the best of relationships can lead to pain from differences in expectations.
But anyways, in this more recent climate of shallowness, self-absorption, and short-sightedness, intimate partners are harder to come by these days. The whole caring about someone who is particularly special to you and you to them is diminishing as the years move forward. Increasingly, you're on your own in sickness and health, except for perhaps your immediate family (if they are still alive and well and in communication).
It is just bad situations heaped on each other, over and over again, sometimes the grinding down process is like a drill.. life just throws painful moment after moment.. sometimes it is like a slow turning screw, ever so steadily grinding you down.
Indeed.
Say that to someone extremely ill. Is the illness supposed to be good because if one gets through it life seems better? You gotta do better than that.
You can't distill some premises on your own? Do I need to explicate?
If I had to characterize the premises, it is being thrown into the world with an orientation for "dealing with". Now just complete the sentence with all that you have experienced:
Dealing with...other people, their differing personalities, expectations, judgements, affects on your well-being
Dealing with...survival through cultural institutions and situatedness (socio-economic means)
Dealing with... illnesses, disorders, disasters, accidents, injuries
Dealing with...finding relationships, love, connection
Dealing with...cause and effect in general, the affects/effects of one's own decisions- poor or otherwise
Dealing with...one's own inability to be satisfied
Keep going if you wish. I've given you a nice starter.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Life is an abattoir, not an argument.
:death: :flower:
:smirk:
Hehe.. I can agree with that.
The problem is that the scope of this discussion is soooo broad and we're probably experiencing different problems so that if I were to give advice it could be completely out of place or inappropriate to the situation you're dealing with.
In my case, I have... 1 or 2 main problems that I would like to fix. But I can still enjoy life. I have other areas in my life that I'm doing well with so I can sort of fall back on those.
Since I can concretely identify the issues which are causing me trouble I wouldn't really describe the problem as "the premises of life." I don't know how it is with you though.
Yes I am aware of these philosophies and am actually against them. You are aware that Nietzsche tried to overturn Schopenhauer's philosophy, correct? I think Nietzsche and Camus is simply the "accepting" crowd. I am a bit more rebellious than that in my outlook. Accepting the premises (let's just distill it to suffering in some way as you have seemed to elude to), is simply trying to justify that there is suffering in the first place. It does not turn suffering on its head- it simply enables it. It's not even clever. In other words, screw Nietzsche's idea of finding meaning in the suffering, haha.
Yeah, I guess the "dealing with" part is how it is. I tend to think everyone has to deal with those dealing withs, and people manage positively sometimes, and don't question the dealings with. Others do question it (me I guess). I asked for advice on people who don't like the dealings with besides suicide or "go see someone" (see a therapist.. making it just a psychological disposition that needs to be "fixed" through cognitive-behavioral or other type of therapy).
I mean don't get me wrong... you can solve a lot of these problems. But when you just throw out like 8-9 different areas of life that people struggle with (romance, wealth, sickness, etc.) it's just so broad that it's tough for me to say anything meaningful. I'd much rather narrow the focus.
I think in general though some of it can be fixed and others you just can't. If something is unfixable you'll just have to come to accept it. The vexing ones are the ones that are maybe solvable.
Well you are assuming this is about fixing something. That might be the wrong approach. The question is "What if you don't like the premises of life?" So it already points to the idea that accepting isn't even part of the equation. That would be more like, "How can I improve my life?" That would be someone who is open to the idea that there is some sort of positive building going on, that should be sought after. This is more like someone who knows well ideas like "self-improvement" and doesn't even accept the premises themselves, that others might find can be "improved" upon.
Could you give me an example?
I, personally, have identified obstacles to achieving greater happiness. I am working on breaking those down. I think if I were to break them down I would be thrilled and achieve a much higher degree of consistent happiness.
The problem in our discussion is that "the premises of life" seem to be extremely broad. Some of them might bother you, but not bother other people so it's not an inevitability.
Well, I'm not familiar with the philosopher. Is it Camus? I only read his la peste.
The example is exactly someone who would ask the question, "What if you don't like the premises of life?" Nothing more or less.
I guess I can explain by going back again to dealing with. An analogy might be something like a game. If you were on a game that you can't get out of except through death, well there are a couple options. Some people "accept" the game (what many people including you suggest), and then offer ways to get better at certain aspects of it. But then there are some people who simply don't like the premises, the very game itself. Yes, they know there are people with ways to "improve" how to play it, but they don't like the fact that they are dealing with the game, whether improving it or not, in the first place. I also think, as you suggest, that improving doesn't necessarily apply to all individuals, but that is a different debate. Let's just stick to the analogy of improving aspects of the game vs. not even wanting to deal with the improving or dealing with the circumstances of the game in the first place.
Well, if you're stuck in the game you might as well make the best of it... the rewards could be quite great. I think the rewards could blow you away. I do believe the reason for the game is the reward (to be specific, it's love.)
It doesn't really matter if you accept that you're in the game or not, or that you like the game itself or not... you're here, and you have one shot at this game (as far as we know) so pursue those rewards!
Pollyanna. It's easy to say rewards, good things, etc.
Clearly you are stuck inside your own negative premises. From which there is no escape without motivation.
Well, if you spend all day hating the game and marinating on these thoughts don't be surprised if you find yourself in misery. Some thoughts that you have - and these thoughts may reflect reality - just aren't helpful and you should discard them.
In the end, I'd rather be a clueless pollyanna than live like Schopenhauer. But it's your call.
This is a statement though, not a question. The request for clarity was (or should be) over what the question means "What if you don't like the premises of life?". What does the 'what' mean?
What [is the case] if you don't like the premises of life? - Well that's simple, the case is that you're going to either have a miserable life, or you're going to change your mind about the premises.
What [should one do] if you don't like the premises of life? - This depends entirely on one's objective, you cannot derive an ought from an is without objective. The 'is' is the way the world is, the premises of life as you put it, but we cannot derive an 'ought' from that alone, you need to provide an objective - "how to I get from A to B?" is an answerable question, "where should I go from A?" is not.
My advice - just lie down where you are. If that displeases you, think of something which would please you more and do that. If the thought of doing something distasteful simply because it displeases you less than some other thing displeases you, then think something else, something which displeases you less. Your thoughts do not arrive out of the ether fully formed that you have to just accept them by default. They are constructed by your brain to suit the behaviour you put them to. Your feelings of displeasure with the premises of life are not a rational judgement which you must treat as sacrosanct. They're just the story your brain thinks best explains your behaviour and sensory inputs. Change your behaviour and sensory input and your brain will change the story.
I do not see a theme song on the thread. Take your pick:
Variations on a theme of 'lay me down'. Note the dual meaning of putting aside and expression.
Or for a fuller exposition of the philosophy, and complete marriage to life, perhaps this: "when I was deep in poverty, you taught me how to give".
What are these "premises" that one may not like?
That's a perfect analogy here.
The disposition is not about "change your behavior". That is implying that something should or can be changed. Let us say that really, there are people that simply don't like the premises of life, no matter what. It's not that they don't think they can't "improve" some goals in this or that (by simply living, one has to do that in some way, so that's not really in question), but the OVERALL game itself- the fact that this improvement is or has to even taking place. All of it is not liked.
It's a conundrum. And we like to think of life now as a machine that can be corrected. Thus therapists and such are somehow the machine service people that ensure the outliers are running smoothly. There's no philosophical way out. Therapists have to be aboard the accepting crew. They need to account for well-adjustment in society. Nothing to see here.. Keep moving. Don't complain. YOU are the problem. This machine needs to run.
Ironically, you can be a miserable piece of shit in your mood, treat people like shit, but not openly criticize the premises of life, and because you are at least "contributing" to the game are deemed fine and worthy.
If you are a nice, caring, friendly, person but openly criticize the premises of life, even if you are "contributing" you are deemed as unworthy. It doesn't matter your character, how you treat people. It matters that you don't denigrate the game itself, you contribute willingly and fully. It's all about accepting the premises or not openly criticizing it to be accepted. I see it here. And of course in open real world society.
No I mean it. Let's say you have a severe illness that completely ravages your body and internal organs. Let's say you slowly recover. What does one do with that? Oh boy, it's just a raw deal? Yep, yes it is. But what else is that? Well, that is what happens in a contingent universe? Oh yes, real comfort food there. Well, getting over harsh conditions, strengthens ones disposition? Besides, that one might have come out weakened, not strengthened physically, I don't know why that should be a sign that one is better off to now have dealt with more pain. It is just more grist for the mill. You are the grist in this case. The mill didn't like you very much. Keep moving. Keep working. You need to survive again in "normal" conditions. No one gives a shit. That's life. Just accept it. Try to improve yourself. Take stock. Look at the premises and do better at abiding by them. You see the theme I am getting at? Yeah it is just a bit cynical, but that might be what is called for here.
By whom and why does their opinion matter in the least?
You might assert as much, but the evidence is against you. What evidence we have (and it's reasonably compelling) is that what you like and dislike, your dispositions, are models your brain creates to suit your circumstances. You can fly in the face of evidence all you like, make up your own little fantasy world, but it simply is not the case that a person has dispositions that are not malleable by behaviour.
It's like you're arguing "what can you do if you're born too heavy to move?". You're just not. It's factually incorrect that any newborn is too heavy to move so the problem doesn't exist. It's factually incorrect that anyone is unchanging disposed to dislike the very idea of life. People's dispositions can, and regularly are, changed by behaviour.
If don't even want to make those changes, then what on earth are you asking for advice about? What kind of response do you think I'd get if I wrote a dozen threads whining about how I wasn't yet a millionaire but refused any and all advice about how to become one on the grounds that it would entail me actually having to do something?
Lol I love your avatar. Just noticed it.
Unnecessary tone..
Anyways, thats the conundrum. The millionare analogy is not apt as in that case someone wants to be a millionaire. The premises of life are set. One has to abide them or die. There is no choice excepting suicide. The only choices are to accept the game. Thats no choice though. You are looking at playing it well or not. Im looking at it from not even accepting the terms, even if they are set.
It is like encountering someone who is stuck down a well and you offer to assist them in climbing out but instead they insist that although they are miserable they like it down there and invite you to join them. One can only walk away sighing and laughing in equal measure.
Right, which is why I asked why you're writing posts. You want something, some result which is not the one you currently have. If you're satisfied with what you currently feel, then there's no need to do anything. If you're not satisfied with how you currently feel then you are, by definition, wanting of some other state of mind. So you 'want' something (some other state of mind) but you're not prepared to take any action at all to get it.
We don't need to invoke the 'premises of life' to explain how that doesn't make sense. That just doesn't make any sense simply according to the laws of cause and effect,
:up:
:sweat:
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
No... I'm pretty sure that you're just feeling alone in being reasonable. The chances these guys are actually talking about the same things has got to be zero.
Going back to game analogy...
If you dont want to play the game, but the only option is to try to play the game better, and taking suicide off the table, then what? Thats the conundrum. Its not asking for improvement plans, its giving the scenario.
Then, yes. That is the scenario, you're correct. You have two choices; don't play the game, or change the way you feel about the game (which you could see as taking the first move). I mean what did you expect? For us to change predicate logic? If you've only got two choices you have to take one of them, that's what only having two choices means, is that what you wanted people here to confirm?
Its the implication for thise living in that binary choice...
There's no implication beyond the simple fact that one option must be chosen. Being born requires you to chose to continue to live or not. If you prefer life, then continue, if you don't, don't.
Again, I'm not seeing the philosophical question. One chooses the most preferable out of the options available. Isn't that obvious? I know you'd rather have not been put in this position, but that's not one of the choices, so that's not relevant. It's like me saying I'd rather have been a wolf. What's the philosophical investigation attached to 'things we'd rather were the case'?
Quoting schopenhauer1 I offered love as motivation, not relief. To remedy the sense of purposelessness, not the sense of helplessness. Love will definitely increase the actual hardship many-fold.
Quoting schopenhauer1 I agree. This probably steers into a politically and culturally focused topic, but indeed, people appear to be living isolated. I suspect that there are far reaching consequences - lack of empathy, no sense of responsibility, etc. But I may be over-dramatizing. It certainly doesn't apply to everybody.
Hey Schop1!
Being a glass half-full (not half-empty) guy myself, and although perhaps a little idealistic, I don't think that's really the case there. Now, unless you have a particular happenstance in mind, I'm not sure I'm understanding your beef.
Just common sense say's that critique of, really anything, both on a micro and macro scale is what helps improve society and the human condition. By living in the free world, it goes without saying we are free to better ourselves (or not better ourselves) not only for our own benefit, but for the benefit of others as a whole.
Now I certainly get how Government and the 'corporate america mentality' tends to perpetuate, what I'll call, the tin-solder routine, where conformity rules the day. But there again, it depends on what you're referring to... , otherwise if I join a team, I have to play by the rules. And if I join a team whose internal philosophy is not compatible with mine, I leave and move on.
Help me understand your concern here... ?
Ha! You couldn't have chosen anything more appropriate!
Sure, agreed.. Please keep in mind all the other so-called classifications of Love viz ancient Greek philosophy.. And accordingly, not only love of self ( and basic self esteem) but also love of friendships, colleagues, family, nature,, et al are equally important.
How can one rebel against the premises of life if one still continues to live? By living one is accepting, it is purely a matter of how content one can be in that acceptance.
Not many would be able to say they appreciate all the premises of a human life, but since there is no one to hold accountable, in my view, it is rather futile to attempt a rebellion against brute fact. Perhaps you find it difficult, but it simply isn’t possible to act against the laws of nature (biological and physical).
Philosophically, is it not more amenable to accept what we can not change and thus discuss the areas in which it is possible to make an impact?
But a lot more seriously, and said non-jokingly, kill yourself, is the only answer. I presume it gets better quickly.
If you don't see your hell through, you may suffer again. Perhaps, have a deep thought.
I have found this attitude generally boils down to wanting things to be different than they are. And when it comes to changing the universe, versus changing yourself, the latter is far easier and more effective.
The premises of life are what are generally needed to survive, sustain, maintain, be entertained in a human existence. As I've stated earlier:
Dealing with...other people, their differing personalities, expectations, judgements, affects on your well-being
Dealing with...survival through cultural institutions and situatedness (socio-economic means)
Dealing with... illnesses, disorders, disasters, accidents, injuries
Dealing with...finding relationships, love, connection
Dealing with...cause and effect in general, the affects/effects of one's own decisions- poor or otherwise
Dealing with...one's own inability to be satisfied
So what if some people don't want to die, but don't want the dealing with either? Yes, there are coping strategies, but having to do any of it, improvement regimes or otherwise, are not wanted to be entered in. Of course one is shit out of luck. That is the conundrum for someone who doesn't want any of it.
I was looking for some interesting conversation on the conundrum rather than disdain for the idea itself which I'm well aware people on the forum have a biased against. We all know, pull yourself up by your bootstraps and improve yourself is the default advice here. Is there any more than this? Anything of more intriguing ideas about pessimism in general or this viewpoint in a broader perspective? Afterall it is questioning the human enterprise itself, I would think that can provoke more interesting things than "You make your own prison and you must improve yourself." Anything more global than its the pessimists fault?
I am interested in why you consider those things to be premises of life, which I consider to mean either inescapable or so important that the lack of it results in death.
Are those things really inescapable? Do they really result in death when they are lacking? Or is this what our perceptions, mostly influenced by the sort of society we live in, are pressured into believing?
Well, speaking only from personal experience here, I have entertained this question seriously at several points in my life. At those time it was certainly what I would call an existential crisis of the highest degree...that's putting it mildly. So I don't really think it is fair for you to characterize my response as disdainful. Speaking as someone who has lived through it, that is my answer.
My experience further, is that the answers you like least are often the ones you need to think about most.
He means all the things you necessarily “agree” to by being alive. I think he might even include All the things you might experience aa well, if pressed.
You haven't explained what you're asking for. That's why you're being met with disdain. There's not even a question there because you've rejected phrasing it as "what does one do if one doesn't like the premises of life...?" because you're not prepared to do anything about it.
So all you're left with is making a statement. "You have to either accept the premises of life or die".
Yes. That's right. That is correct. You have correctly identified the nature of life. Well done. You can write that down in your book of 'things that are the case'. Honestly, what more is there to discuss. It's a brute fact. You're not prepared to entertain any suggestions of anything you can actually do about it, or even think about it, so what else is there other than agree that it is indeed the case?
But what more can really be said other than, "you're shit out of luck"? The premises of life are already present, you're already caught up 'playing the game'. If suicide is off the table (why?), then there is no option but to continue coping with and dealing with. The conundrum is essentially, "I don't suffer enough to lethally harm myself, yet enough to where I don't enjoy living". Well yeah, then you're fucked. You could find a distraction. Gaming? Gambling? Sex? Get a girlfriend? Fry your brain with drugs? Rig up some contraption that feeds you and toilets you? But you don't want suggestions on coping methods, so I'm not sure what's left to say. It's a terrible situation.
Yes, it has a lot of implications. Politically it means we are not really "for" ourselves as the only choice we can make is moving up or down a spectrum of (for the pessimist) unwanted realities.
Quoting Tzeentch
So how aren't they?
Quoting Inyenzi
No I wouldn't advocate a Wall-E world either where one exists to be fed and defecate. But isn't that interesting, all this economic striving for essentially just that, but we need more in life than basic necessities. Yet, this need is predicated on things that one might not want to deal with in the first place. There is no 'no option" button. Reality is such that fortune, one's own decisions, society, other people, survival (i.e. socio-economic circumstances), and contingency in general all come together and one has to "deal with it" or die.
What would ""for" ourselves" even mean in this context? Being 'for' something is about objectives, but you're not talking about objectives here (you are discontent, so becoming content would be a perfectly accurate objective). What you're talking about here is mean. Your objective is to remove discontent. That in itself isn't a problem. The problem is that you refuse any means by which to do that.
A few of the things you listed, like "dealing with other people', "survival through cultural institutions", "finding relationships".
If one doesn't like these premises, what is stopping one from adopting a life that doesn't involve them?
"Dealing with one's own inability to be satisfied", is this truly a premise? Don't you know anybody that is satisfied in life? And if you do, what makes them different from you?
You also name things like "cause & effect" and "randomness". I suppose those are pretty much inescapable. Though, perception plays a large role in how we experience these factors. The Stoics have said a lot about this topic.
I think many of the things seen as "premises" are actually choices.
I'm not sure, but I find that 'nihilstic' conclusions defeat the purpose of philosophy to begin with.
Confucianism is dated, however I've found that some of the principles are reoccurring, such as in more modern treatise on civilization, or even etiquette.
Something akin to Oliver Wendell Holmes might be a better example, at least as far as the philosophy of modern law and civilization is concerned.
Personally, I liked Rawls a lot. I like Confucianism because it leads to stable outcomes, as a premise of the very philosophy.
I've heard of Rawls, I'm not sure how he compares.
Interestingly, the "philosophy" behind etiquette (e.x. Emily Post) has some similarities to Confucius' philosophy, such as etiquette being related to holding civilization together, though some might say it's overly "conformist" and not always applicable to real life situations (though the philosophy is that etiquette is fluid and adaptable in form, and does change with the time, though the underlying principles are universal, rather than pure "formalism" as is often stereotypically portrayed).
Requires interaction though.