How can you kick that "nothing matters so why should I care" feeling and get things done?

Life itself is inherently unfulfilling because if we have nothing else to do we become bored. People cope with drink, drugs, and many other forms of coping which shows how existence is inherently unfulfilling and we need to constantly distract ourselves to make it tolerable. If life itself was inherently fulfilling, we wouldn’t get bored and we would have no need of all these coping mechanisms.

Evidence mounts for dark energy from black holes - University of Michigan

There is yet increasing evidence that shows that black holes are the source of dark energy (I posted a link to the article).

If it really is true that the source of dark energy are black holes themselves, then the universe is guaranteed to be cyclic due to the fact that when all black holes evaporate, then so too does the expansion of the universe slow down, and when the amount of black holes decrease enough to the point that expansion cannot counter the effects of gravity, then gravity wins out thus making the universe begin to contract, thereby ending it in a Big Crunch for another Big Bang to emerge.

I find this to be horrific news, as this would guarantee that we will inevitably be reborn an infinite amount of times and experience all possible suffering, over and over again, ad infinitum.

Welcome to our weekly WAYR thread. Be sure to leave the title and author of the book that you are currently reading, along with your thoughts on the text.

I've been reading a lot of schopenhauers essays. I've also watched many videos and listened to podcasts on the subject extensively. As we all know, the very basis of his philosophy is this idea of what's called the will to life. So my question is, what is it exactly?

It's presented as some blind metaphysical force that drives all of life, and thus all of life is merely a manifestation of the will. Often, its given the lable of being singular (where as mainländer argued it was plural) but what does any of that mean?

Why is it so important wether or not it is singular or plural? Why was it given a name, and described as some sort of entity. Could schopenhaur of not simply said life is driven by suffering and a striving away from it? What is the significance of a metaphysical force? And if life is merely a manifestation of said will, does that mean that this life isn't real? Or does it simply mean we cannot access the true nature of things outside of our perspective? Is the will a tangible entity or force? Or merely an abstract concept, a complex synonym for the idea that life is driven by suffering, and at its core is suffering?

Om sorry if this is a often discussed topic, and I'm sorry if this seems to be a very self explanatory question. I have never thought of as intelligent, so this could very well be my lack of intelligence. I simply just cannot grasp this concept, and the ideas of it being a "metaphysical force" or "being singular or plural"

If anyone has a better grasp or interpretation of the Will to life, I would very much appreciate hearing your explanation.

Thank you

I took this suggestive image from the @DRKSPACE profile on Pinterest.

How do you think a lot of classical existential pessimist philosophy hold up today in the light of more science?

For example, we all know Mainlander’s views of the universe as being a drive towards extinction itself. As it happens, current astronomy seems to back him up, which I think is more happenstance than prophecy. Also, you can’t help see something of an influence in Freud’s “Death Drive”, as contestable I believe that is in current psychology (Freud’s own pessimism is of course a matter of record).

I understand Schopenhauer, despite his disdain for materialism, liked to keep up with the latest science news of his day (him being an amateur naturalist and all), and liked to think of some discoveries as affirming his “Will”. Still, he believed “the Will” was something that you more intuit than empirically prove.

And of course, there’s been the long held view of evolution as “survival of the fittest”, and that meaning pretty much all against all and god against everyone. Perhaps the average Nature documentary is some of the best scientific proof of existential pessimism. It’s true that there is also a lot of cooperation in Nature, within and between species, though. Would that somehow disprove the idea that Nature is all about fighting and fucking the way to the top of the food chain? Is there any contradiction to speak of?

What do other people here think? Does science justify or unjustify existential pessimism? Does existential pessimism need science’s justification? Are there points of comparison?

I was thinking eralier, about everything, about humans and how disgusting we are. And it finally hit me, humanity does have a purpose; it's violence. Now ofc this post isn't promoting or condoning violence, it's just a observation I made about humans specifically. Ofc we have nature to blame for this but it goes deeper than blaming nature. Think about it real hard for a second, what is humanity's solution to almost every problem? Killing. Kill this, kill that, that person is different from our group? Kill them. I don't like that person? Kill them. They don't get it? Take a wild guess. Humans only solutions to every problem is to take a life, weather it be for fun, for a religion, for a "righteous reason" or whatever. Even the most compassionate people( or the self proclaimed compassionate people) efilists, or any other anti life person, can only think of one way to solve all the evil in the world, killing. "Peaceful extinction" is stil killing yall, it's the unconsensual taking of life, even if it's peaceful. Humans can only ever think of murder, yet claim they are the smartest. Even suicide falls under all this. Pills, guns, blah blah blah, most people can only think of suicide as a solution, which once again, is just another form of KILLING. Is that it? Is that really all humans can think of? Is murder? Is that our only function, destruction? What a pathetic species.

"There's but one truly serious problem in all of philosophy: that of suicide. To answer the question of whether life is worth living is to answer the most fundamental question one can ask".

Albert Camus

Camus ultimately rejected suicide, considering it to only add to the nonsensicalness of life rather than solving it. Schopenhauer had more or less the same views, though in his case, while still acknowledging one's intrinsical right kill oneself, he too rejected suicide based on the notion that doesn't kill the Will, which he considered the fundamental force of living beings.

However, can suicide still be considered something of a final, definite act of rebellion? Some sort of cosmic "fuck you" against not only one's life, this cruel world, but against existence itself?

Hi folks, came across the following work "Ulrich Horstmann- Das Uniter/the beast" in one of ligotti s interviews, which seemed interesting to me. Does anybody know if there is a translation in English( unable to find it online)? Or any secondary material on this work?

We all know we are going to die anyway, that nothing we did or will do matter and nothing can keep us away from extinction. We're but animated beings moving in circles trapped in a conscious existence where death and reproduction are endless and all the meaning, value, rules and jobs are created by the mind to keep us busy by doing something until we die, while, along the way suffering innumerable pains, deception and problems of all kind that make our live unbelievable difficult even in the best of cases.

However looked upon, life is hideous. Even in the greatest of joys.

Knowing an endless, predictable and despicable cycle of meaningless lives...

As biology dictates for the human life as it follows:

1- To be born 2- To grow up 3- To reproduce 4- To die

What seems inconcebible to me is WHY haven't we done more, WHY have we delude ourselves so much to not give a damn with religion, politics..., to make up so much bullshit to deal with existence tranquilly, when the end is the same.

WHY aren't we all working together towards putting an end to this misery via, for example, immortality??!

Yet here we are, humans. If we were better we should have ended with this long ago, instead of wasting so much resources on endless destruction.

It's not necessarily about absolute death, as Mainlander suggested, but to end an absurd cycle of life and death that leads to beings to go through so much just to suffer and continue doing the same over an over, even if through eternal life.

If humanity was worthy of it, we would have already discovered how to break the cycle. Maybe we were born in the wrong era.

Hello, I'd like to read some pessimistic books about the horrors/ misery of old age/ aging/ decaying be it in poem format, essay, analysis. Which one do you guys recommend? Thanks!

Playing a bit of the devil's advocate here. Antinatalists and, I guess, most pessimists insist people shouldn't have children because this existence is full of suffering and their offspring is guaranteed to suffer. Most people have children because they're miserable without them for whatever reason (lonely, want to fit in, need someone to take care of them, bored, tons of other reasons) - why should they deny themselves the chance to become happier (even if it means that ultimately they'll just pass their misery onto someone else)? Why should they care??

If you're usually content, is that your baseline? Does hedonic adaptation ensure you'll be mostly content regardless of fortune or misfortune?

Kurnig is one of the first people to write a whole book on antinatalism and his philosophy is thoroughly pessimistic. He quotes Schopenhauer a lot.

Welcome to our weekly WAYR thread. Be sure to leave the title and author of the book that you are currently reading, along with your thoughts on the text.

This quote is from a fictional show that aired in 2011 called "Person of Interest". The show itself gives us a preview of the darkness and evil of our species, but the main character seems to often wonder if life should exist at all. We see the same dreadful thoughts pop up from Hegesias to Plato.

This show isn't pessimistic in nature, but there are so many scenes that lead to huge philosophical questions, and it talks a lot about horrible fates.

Anyway check it out

There’s not much information online available on dolorism, at least from a casual search. Apparently is was, and maybe still is (there was a Reddit page on the subject) the belief that pain and suffering are desirable, or at least are not to be avoided, in that they allow a person to truly understand reality. That is, any pleasure, however small, hides “Truth” from people, whereas any suffering, however small, can be a guide to “Truth”.

While the term had been in use in France since the turn of the last century, it was one Julian Teppe, who I’ve found very little information in English about, who put out a manifesto about it. An individual who suffered from disease all his life, it seems natural for such a man to make some kind of rational sense of his suffering, and suffering in general.

There are a few academic pieces online, usually behind paywalls, that mention dolorism, and a few other scraps of information, but it really is a bit of an underground phenomena, at least in English. If I was smart enough to know French I could probably find more information. Apparently the Rightist Catholic French writer Leon Bloy was a subscriber to the ideology. If anyone has any more information, please do share it.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11061-012-9337-x

I think if you would somehow stop the whole "consumerist" race and force people to self-reflect or think about reality around us, they would hate you.

They would rather silence you than admit being wrong in the past about anything. They're so invested in the whole "worldview" around them that even proposing that it isn't perfect is a grave insult to them.

I think they have the ability to self-reflect, but they are just suppressing it and very scared of it. It's like a self-induced alcohol poisoning.

They exist in a sort of dream or trance state. They seem awake, but they're half-asleep because they treat reality around us like it is some sort of a videogame or a movie.

If you force them to "wake up" and self-reflect, they will not like it.

Arthur Schopenhauer (1788–1860)

The Will as the Source of Suffering

The fundamental reality is a blind, insatiable force called the "Will."

Human desires stem from this Will, leading to endless striving and dissatisfaction.

Life is characterized by a constant pursuit of desires that can never be fully satisfied.

Life as a Pendulum Between Pain and Boredom

Unfulfilled desires cause pain and suffering.

Fulfilled desires lead to boredom due to the absence of new goals.

Existence oscillates between these two undesirable states.

The Vanity of Existence

Life lacks intrinsic value or ultimate purpose.

Achievements and pleasures are transient and ultimately meaningless in the face of death.

Happiness as the Absence of Pain

Happiness is not a positive state but merely the temporary cessation of suffering.

True, lasting happiness is unattainable because desires continually renew.

Pervasiveness of Suffering

Suffering is universal and inevitable for all sentient beings.

Observing the natural world reveals a constant struggle for survival and dominance.

Eduard von Hartmann (1842–1906)

The Philosophy of the Unconscious

The unconscious mind is the ultimate reality driving existence.

Increased consciousness leads to greater awareness of suffering.

The Inevitability of Suffering

Neither individual effort nor societal progress can eliminate suffering.

Pessimism is justified because pain outweighs pleasure in the long run.

Illusion of Progress and Happiness

Technological and social advancements fail to reduce overall suffering.

Pursuit of happiness is futile because it is unattainable on a lasting basis.

Redemption Through Non-Existence

The ultimate goal is the annihilation of the individual will.

Non-existence is preferable as it ends the cycle of desire and suffering.

Philipp Mainländer (1841–1876)

The Will-to-Die

Contrary to Schopenhauer's Will-to-Live, the fundamental drive is toward death and non-existence.

The universe is the result of God's self-annihilation, and all existence aims to return to nothingness.

Life as a Process of Decay

Existence is a gradual decline toward death.

Suffering permeates life, making non-existence more desirable.

Annihilation as Redemption

True redemption is achieved through the cessation of existence.

Death liberates beings from the inherent suffering of life.

Emil Cioran (1911–1995)

The Futility of Existence

Life is inherently meaningless and absurd.

Consciousness magnifies suffering by making individuals aware of life's pointlessness.

The Burden of Time and Memory

Time perpetuates suffering by constantly reminding individuals of their mortality.

Memory prolongs pain by reviving past sufferings.

Illusion of Hope and Progress

Hope creates false expectations and prolongs agony.

Belief in progress is misguided as it doesn't alleviate existential despair.

Peter Wessel Zapffe (1899–1990)

The Overabundance of Consciousness

Humans possess an excess of consciousness that leads to existential angst.

This heightened awareness makes humans uniquely capable of perceiving life's absurdity.

Mechanisms of Repression

Isolation: Ignoring disturbing aspects of life to reduce anxiety.

Anchoring: Adopting beliefs or goals to provide meaning.

Distraction: Engaging in activities to avoid self-reflection.

Sublimation: Channeling existential dread into creative or intellectual pursuits.

The Tragic Existence

Life is a tragic accident, and awareness of this leads to deep pessimism.

Reproduction is ethically questionable as it perpetuates the cycle of suffering.

Albert Camus (1913–1960)

The Absurdity of Life

There's a fundamental conflict between humans' search for meaning and the indifferent universe.

Recognizing this absurdity can lead to feelings of despair and pessimism.

The Futility of Seeking Meaning

Efforts to find inherent meaning in life are inherently futile.

Accepting the absurd condition is necessary, but it doesn't alleviate the inherent dissatisfaction.

Revolt as a Response

While life is absurd, individuals can find value in the struggle itself.

However, this revolt doesn't eliminate the underlying pessimism about life's meaninglessness.

Søren Kierkegaard (1813–1855)

Existential Despair

Life is filled with anxiety and despair due to the freedom of choice.

The search for authentic existence often leads to the realization of life's inherent meaninglessness.

The Leap of Faith

Rationality cannot provide life's meaning, leading to existential angst.

A subjective leap of faith is required, but it doesn't resolve the underlying pessimism about rational understanding.

Ecclesiastes (Traditionally Attributed to Solomon)

Vanity of All Endeavors

All human activities are ultimately meaningless ("Vanity of vanities; all is vanity").

Achievements, wisdom, and pleasures are transient and fail to provide lasting fulfillment.

Inevitability of Death

Death renders human pursuits futile since both the wise and foolish share the same fate.

The inevitability of death casts a shadow over all aspects of life.

Buddha Siddhartha Gautama (c. 5th Century BCE)

The Four Noble Truths

Life is Suffering (Dukkha): Existence is permeated with dissatisfaction and pain.

Origin of Suffering: Craving and attachment lead to suffering.

Cessation of Suffering: Eliminating desire can end suffering.

Path to Cessation: The Eightfold Path provides a way to overcome suffering.

Impermanence and Non-Self

All conditioned things are impermanent and lack an inherent self.

Attachment to impermanent things leads to suffering.

Hegesias of Cyrene (3rd Century BCE)

The Inevitability of Pain

Pleasure is unattainable because life is filled with unavoidable pain and distress.

Happiness is impossible, making death a preferable state.

Advocacy of Death

Argued that since suffering dominates life, non-existence is more desirable.

His teachings allegedly led others to suicide, earning him the name "Death-Persuader."

Arthur Schopenhauer (Additional Points)

Comparison with Eastern Philosophies

Drew parallels between his pessimism and Buddhist teachings on suffering.

Suggested that denial of the Will (desire) could lead to a form of salvation.

Art as a Temporary Escape

Aesthetic contemplation allows momentary relief from the Will's demands.

Art provides a fleeting glimpse into a world free from suffering.

Feel free to add any I have missed.

Why do so many people seem to think that seeing the suffering of others makes us feel better about our lives? it doesn't make any sense to me. we constantly hear things like "if you think life is bad look at these poor people starving. look at these sick people suffering. look at people throughout the entire human history having it worse than you" and yes that's the point. why should it make me feel better not worse that most people suffer horribly? I've been told similar things by family and friends many times when encountering an issue or expressing my views. why am i reminded constantly that other people have it worse and I've been incredibly lucky when that's the reason i am pessimistic? my pessimism is misinterpreted as being ungrateful or complaining about my personal experience in comparison to the experience of others but it's the exact opposite. how come the most fortunate and privileged of us are still miserable, and not because we complain or are ungrateful, because life is incredibly painful. when we compare ourselves to others we are not assessing the situation accurately

Perhaps it's better to quote directly from him rather than try to express how I interpret his rejection of knowledge. this chapter in particular seems to detail his hatred towards bearers of truth, knowledge, salvation or revelation, through the figure of Jesus.

From On the Heights of Despair: The Flight from the Cross

I do not like prophets any more than I like fanatics who have never doubted their mission. I measure prophets' value by their ability to doubt, the frequency of their moments of lucidity. Doubt makes them truly human, but their doubt is more impres- sive than that of ordinary people. Everything else in them is nothing but absolutism, preaching, moral didacticism. They want to teach others, bring them salvation, show them the truth, change their destinies, as if their truths were better than those of the others. Only doubt can distinguish prophets from maniacs. But isn't it too late for them to doubt? The one who thought he was the son of God only doubted at the last moment. Christ really doubted not on the mountain but on the cross. I am convinced that on the cross Jesus envied the destiny of anonymous men and, had he been able to, would have retreated to the most ob- scure corner of the world, where no one would have begged him for hope or salvation. I can imagine him alone with the Roman soldiers, imploring them to take him off the cross, pull out the nails, and let him escape to where the echo of human suffering would no longer reach him. Not because he would suddenly have ceased to believe in his mission—he was too enlightened to be a skeptic—but because death for others is harder to bear than one's own death. Jesus suffered crucifixion because he knew that his ideas could triumph only through his own sacrifice. People say: for us to believe in you, you must renounce ev- erything that is yours and also yourself. They want your death as a warranty for the authenticity of your beliefs. Why do they ad- mire works written in blood? Because such works spare them any suffering while at the same time preserving the illusion of suffering. They want to see the blood and tears behind your lines. The crowd's admiration is sadistic. Had Jesus not died on the cross, Christianity would not have triumphed. Mortals doubt everything except death. Christ's death was for them the ultimate proof of the validity of Christian principles. Jesus could have easily escaped crucifixion or could have given in to the Devil! He who has not made a pact with the Devil should not live, because the Devil symbolizes life better than God. If I have any regrets, it is that the Devil has rarely tempted me . . . but then neither has God loved me. Christians have not yet understood that God is farther removed from them than they are from Him. I can very well imagine God being bored with men who only know how to beg, exasperated by the triv- iality of his creation, equally disgusted with both heaven and earth. And I see him taking flight into nothingness, like Jesus es- caping from the cross. . . . What would have happened if the Ro- man soldiers had listened to Jesus' plea, had taken him off the cross and let him escape? He would certainly not have gone to some other part of the world to preach but only to die, alone, without people's sympathy and tears. And even supposing that, because of his pride, he did not beg for freedom, I find it difficult to believe that this thought did not obsess him. He must have truly believed that he was the son of God. His belief notwith- standing, he could not have helped doubting or being gripped by the fear of death at the moment of his supreme sacrifice. On the cross, Jesus had moments when, if he did not doubt that he was the son of God, he regretted it. He accepted death uniquely so that his ideas would triumph.

It may very well be that Jesus was simpler than I imagine him, that he had fewer doubts and fewer regrets, for he doubted his divine origin only at his death. We, on the other hand, have so many doubts and regrets that not one among us would dare dream that he is the son of a god. I hate Jesus for his preachings, his morality, his ideas, and his faith. I love him for his moments of doubt and regret, the only truly tragic ones in his life, though nei- ther the most interesting nor the most painful, for if we had to judge from their suffering, how many before him would also be entitled to call themselves sons of God!

so it seems that Cioran was a skeptic to the core. this seems to contrasts with the figure of Schopenhauer who tried to construct a metaphysics, in at least an attempt to explain the world.

There's hardly any fiction plot that doesn't involve suffering in some way or another; problems are the prime mover in fiction plots, and since encountering problems is to encounter difficulty, it can be considered suffering.

That being said, you don't have to involve a lot of suffering for a plot to be interesting enough for a potential audience, but it's still something that has to occur.

1. if you take a look at an average person, you can notice that they don’t really ruminate on the nature of existence; hence, they don’t really get into a thought loop where they get a glimpse of what reality really is, or even could be. life is just a continuous train of events for them and not really something as a whole or something abstract. why is that so? i can’t really comprehend why human beings are so nonchalant all the time. it’s like that for them: work-sleep-work, get a family, spend some money, earn some money, then again work-sleep-work, party, talk to your friends. A really small amount of us stops and asks themselves what’s this all about.

2. so for a lot of people life is just a little game, a bad day or a bad situation is just an obstacle for them. some dwell on it, some dive into a self destructive behaviour, some move on. etc etc. But what unites all of them is acceptance. They accepted life for what it is. They look at all the suffering they endure and nod their head without asking any questions. Why is that? at what point did humanity just become ok with going through all these difficulties without having anything positive in return ? why do we agree with life on its terms and continue this mad cycle of agony, we even make shit up to cover for all the pain we experience: “difficulties makes you stronger”. No, they do not. They never did and never will. Are we really that stupid? don’t we all just see what kind of shit we go through on an everyday basis? (not individually but as a species.) Do we all just pretend that it’s fine ?

any thoughts?

Welcome to our weekly WAYR thread. Be sure to leave the title and author of the book that you are currently reading, along with your thoughts on the text.

Existence is imposed non existence is better