Submitted by philosophybreak t3_y9ndt3 in philosophy
Perfection is the enemy of good. :)
Reject mediocrity. Pursue excellence. Leave a marker to your existence.
Except when it isn't. :(
Maybe the good has been the enemy of perfection all along :/
I think it is plausible that the truth value of the proposition varies according to the particulars of the situation - but, if we were to assume otherwise (that it has a constant value), we may then not insist on the necessary level of quality to realize it...and from that, many downstream negative externalities could manifest (due to a cultural tendency to dismiss the potential need for high attention to details).
I think this (admittedly crude and imprecise) theory could go a long ways to describing the nature of modern day politics and culture in general, and in turn: the less than ideal state of affairs on the planet, that everyone hates but seemingly no one can do anything about.
I don't understand. Do you mean perfectionism?
The saying is basically kicking against any "well it wasn't/won't be perfect, so don't even try," so yes. But specifically the saying is to demonstrate that given the choice between doing your best and failing, or doing nothing at all, your best is still better.
I very much agree, what is the point of developing "oughts" if not to make existence worth living?
However, this could also lead to pessimistic philosophy like Antinatalism, Efilism, Pro mortalism, Nihilism, etc. Because some may see suffering as something unpreventable, at least for the unlucky ones and believe we "ought" to not exist, so we dont have to suffer due to bad luck.
Its easy for us to say we ought to live with suffering when we are not the ones that end up on the extreme end of the suffering spectrum, just like how democracy may vote for things that are good for the majority but terrible for the minority.
Personally, I have yet found a philosophy that could speak for both the majority and the minority with regard to suffering. Should we continue the species knowing that some will always have terrible lives not worth living? Should we end the entire species because of some victims of terrible lives? We dont have a clear cut philosophical answer, as far as I know.
One for all or all for one?
What are you saying leads to pessimism here, the acknowledgement that suffering is inevitable? Because I doubt there's any philosophy in existence that completely denies the existence of suffering at all, and most philosophies are not pessimistic in the sense here, so the acknowledgement definitely doesn't lead to that.
As for philosophies that speak to the suffering of all and not just some, there are a lot that do, but it's mostly just paper thin arguments about why those suffering the most implicitly deserve it because they don't play by society's rules. I suspect speaking about suffering in general is too abstract to really examine those most suffering in society in a way that's meant to be integrated into a larger sociopolitical philosophy.
Basically we have no answer, the unluck minority still suffers and no philosophy could make them feel like their suffering is worth it, because honestly its not, this is why we have suicide and people begging for their lives to end.
Maybe we need a philosophy that could accept this unchanging fact of existence and somehow still able to justify the existence of the lucky majority at the expense of the few, statistically speaking. Its the eternal trolley problem of existence, but somehow make it ok to sacrifice some people for the many, even if the victims strongly protest it.
Otherwise we'd end up with Antinatalism, Pro mortalism and Efilism, quite depressing.
>Maybe we need a philosophy that could accept this unchanging fact of existence and somehow still able to justify the existence of the lucky majority at the expense of the few, statistically speaking.
we already do.
look at the dialogue surrounding the poor and unemployed, or even more relevant that attitudes of people from America in regards to climate change and China. or the West vs the 3rd world, funny how the ones most suited to change the climate routinely do the least.
majority of humanity is perfectly happy to stack piles of corpses as long as they dont have to do it or see it directly (see: every single person on reddit. if you live a middle class lifestyle you are living on the backs of 10,000s, all the things we own are only cheap because the people making it are borderline slaves).
Biggest BS of all time: Reddit blaming corporations for producing 80% of global pollution without a fucking hint of irony. its the same as addicts putting all the blame of the dealer ''oh i buy drugs all the time but its the dealers fault i keep coming back!''
In some way, this is the default philosophy of humanity and the strongest counter argument against pessimistic philosophies, though I personally dont think its a strong argument.
"We keep going at the expense of the unlucky few because majority rule, has been and will always be." -- is their strongest argument, which is hard to challenge if they truly believe in it.
Personally, I think we need a better philosophy that gives the victims of existence more consideration that they deserve, because they most definitely have a vote in this human experiment, since they have paid the highest price for it, by suffering lives that are not worth living.
I hope we can develop such a philosophy soon, because many are giving up and flocking to pessimism.
If we want to be morally consistent, to not just shout slogans about individual well being and actually care for the victims, then we better do something about it soon. Majority rule is just not a good moral stance.
>make it ok to sacrifice some people for the many, even if the victims strongly protest it.
Hitler has entered the chat...
and left because bad luck is not genocide.
It's just that any philosophy which allows for justifying genocide... tends to go that way.
Accepting bad luck is not justifying genocide, what the eff are you talking about? lol
But it's not really "bad luck" at all, is it? Accepting a philosophy that "makes it ok [...]" is a choice, both individually and collectively. Practically speaking, there are some major pitfalls to such, amongst them: people will compete to be immune to such "sacrifice", people will fight for control of the power to decide, and any group which is consistent immune by such means will tend to start viewing itself as superior to the rest.
errrr, ok.
and?
you act like theres any actual alternative, 'needs of the many' is how we have done pretty much all of civilised history.
the hitler example above is perfect, the nazis believed the needs of the many would be served by genocide and we decided the needs of the many were served by destroying the nazis (luckily we won)
And?
That proves the philosophical "toolset" you propose is flawed. It allows you to derive both. A premise that leads to Hitler being justified is problematic, to say the least.
A philosophy that relies on luck, rather than shared principles, also has little value. It requires accepting an unjust world - not just that we live in one, but also that we needn't do anything about it.
I don't see how any philosophy which allows such cavalier treatment of human lives, which consciences the unjust suffering of your peers for the sake of your own gain, can ever be morally useful.
>Personally, I have yet found a philosophy that could speak for both the majority and the minority with regard to suffering.
is that an issue?
i would argue its not possible to find an all encompassing ideology. there will always be exceptions, bad faith actors, corruption by the wealthy and threat/influence by outside forces.
It is an issue if we want to be morally consistent and dont agree with "majority rule" when it comes to suffering.
We constantly shout about how moral we are because we care about individuals, but when it comes to extreme suffering of some unlucky victims, we swing back to moral collectivism, ignoring the victims for the many, this is morally questionable if not deplorable.
Mainly you have to abandon the idea that suffering is of no value. It's not pleasant, by definition, and we generally do not seek it out, but a life entirely without suffering may be worse than one that had some.
If only some people dont suffer so much that their entire life is not worth repeating or even beginning.
Its not that easy, some lives are absolutely nightmarish and should never even start, if we could prevent it.
Suffering is only "bearable" if it doesnt destroy someone's life, which for some unlucky victims, it does, horrifically.
Apply it at a species level- if humanity suffers some overall, but considers it worthwhile overall, it is worth humanity continuing, regardless if some people draw the short straw.
That's the problem, we dont all agree on this one for all philosophy, which is why we have Schopenhauer, Antinatalism, Efilism and Pro mortalism, nihilism and other "better end it soonest" philosophies that argue for the minority.
Its easy for you and I to say its worth it when we are not the ones with the shortest of the short straws ever, almost no straw even, lol.
If you have seen such suffering up close, you'd understand why some people would rather we dont exist than to keep making these victims for the sake of the "many".
So let's rephrase your point: "I'm not enjoying life, therefore no humans who are enjoying life should exist."
Sounds a bit extreme, doesn't it?
A second thing to ask is why we'd remotely be obligated to keep all people happy instead of just most, or even some. People who don't want to exist are, in most cases, one jump away from not. If they don't want to do that either, well...not our problem.
Here's a few example for your thought, if you would stop engaging in bad faith.
-born with stage 4 bone cancer, died in agony at age 10, not a single day without pain.
-Entire family kidnapped, tortured, raped and murdered in front of them due to war, the cartel, ethnic cleansing, random psycho.
-born with genetic mental torture, the "happy" part of their brain are literally missing (as in no brain matter in that section), not a single day of their existence is not torture.
-millions of children live very short and torturous lives due to war, famine, natural disasters, poverty, genetic diseases, crime, random unpreventable bad luck, etc. What is the worth of their existence? Would you trade places with them?
"Not enjoying life" and "not happy" indeed, this is reality, actual nightmare is a thing for some people, friend.
Telling the victims of suffering to just kill themselves is the MOST deplorable thing another human being could do, extreme sociopathy by definition, not a justification for anything but pure sociopathy.
Its not your problem because you just dont care, you do you, but a lot us do care and are working hard to find a way to make existence worth it for the victims, unless you wanna physically stop us to uphold your "ideal" of narcissism, then why bother shouting about it from the top of your lungs?
And there are billions who do enjoy life. Are those examples you list a reason why those billions should not live and enjoy life?
Again, "I'm not happy, therefore you shouldn't exist" is the position of the school shooter, not a rational human being.
Read my replies again, carefully, because you are missing the point entirely.
You're saying that the suffering of some means the joy of the majority can't be justified, and it would be better if they all didn't exist, yes?
And yet, for those of us who do enjoy life, this is justified.
Now this puts you in something of a state if we take you at your word- you're surrounded by a planet full of psychopaths who will gleefully bring into existence those who suffer just to share what they deem a pleasure with others, generation after generation, era after era.
And yet, you wish to continue living among such sadists. Why is that?
>You're saying that the suffering of some means the joy of the majority can't be justified, and it would be better if they all didn't exist, yes?
Nope, read all the replies again, from the very top.
>If you have seen such suffering up close, you'd understand why some people would rather we dont exist than to keep making these victims for the sake of the "many".
and still wouldnt agree.
those people have enough arrogance and cowardice to decide that no one should be brought in to existence due to the mere possibility of suffering, such 'philosophy' is just depression projected into a world view (and isnt worth serious consideration by anyone)
the vast majority of humanity does not wish they never existed, indeed the vast majority are happy to be alive (anti-natalists use extremely flawed and worthless reasoning by Benatar to justify their position ie Benatar baselessly assumes everyone lies about life quality)
Possibility or inevitability? I'm pretty sure victims of terrible endless suffering still exist, friend.
Though I personally disagree that we should end the world due to the suffering of some people, it is also true that we still dont have any good philosophy that could convincingly argue for the existence of these victims.
The closest we get is "majority rule" and that's just not good enough of a justification, in my opinion.
I've been having these questions about suffering and whether an absolutely horrible life should be lived lately these months. I believe that in some extreme cases where a good future is impossible, suicide is logical.
Suffering is something that is part of existence. Everyone will suffer. Now, suffering in an intense way for a long time without a perception of salvation is something that no one should go through, but some do. I don't believe that we should all cease to exist because of this minority. As it is inevitable that these people who suffer intensely will exist, I believe that the best solution is to seek the best option for them, that being trying to find some salvation that guarantees a better life or a peaceful death.
Perfection will never exist. Me, you, society, life and existence will always have problems, but the most logical decision I believe is that we should always live trying to be good, to learn and solve these problems. Two things that I believe help the existence, and perhaps even the growth, of suffering is the ignorance and selfishness that many people have. That's why I hate phrases like "ignorance is bliss" or "only seek happiness in your life because you only live once".
But according to negative utilitarianism, if we just blow up earth, then nobody will ever suffer again, thus ending the problem of suffering.
The only counter against this is majority rule, as in the ok-ish lives of the majority overrule the suffering of the minority, which is something that society have been doing since forever. Though I find this argument not so convincing.
It would really end the suffering, but I rule it out because it's almost impossible to happen. Like I rule out the idea of everyone stopping having children, it's something that will never happen.
The only solution I see is for the majority to seek to help the minority.
Impossible as in you have seen the future and know everything there is to know about future tech and science of world ending?
Or impossible as in your personal opinion based on limited knowledge?
I said that it is ALMOST impossible.
"Blow up the earth", whoever has the power to do this will most likely not do it to destroy the entire human race and end suffering, in fact they will want to generate more suffering. Those who have this power are the powerful and they don't want it.
If you're talking about everyone stopping having kids, it's also almost impossible. People will continue to have children for a variety of reasons. The only way for everyone to stop is to force them not to.
“A man should hear a little music, read a little poetry, and see a fine picture every day of his life, in order that worldly cares may not obliterate the sense of the beautiful which God has implanted in the human soul.”
Why did you post this shit on a philosophy sub? It is completely irrelevant.
Because religion is always right. /s
> The real practical value of philosophy comes not through focusing on the ‘ideal’ life, but through helping us deal with life’s inevitable suffering
Isn't this what philosophy in general teaches? I'm not familiar with other cultural philosophies like African and Latin American, but my understanding is that both Western and Eastern philosophies acknowledge the harsh reality of life and give prescription on how to live in harmony with that fact, while building a better life than at present. I don't see philosophy teaching how to live an "ideal life". Even then the notion is debatable because someone else has their own different definition and understanding on how to live life.
> both Western and Eastern philosophies acknowledge the harsh reality of life and give prescription on how to live in harmony with that fact, while building a better life than at present.
Better in what sense? According to what standard? Do we mean improving our material conditions, or pursuing some notion of the good life?
My point is that admitting that it makes sense to speak of "better" and "worse" lives, then you already admit to the use of an ideal to guide action.
The thing that makes a better life better is exactly the fact that it more closely approximates some notion of an ideal life.
> Even then the notion is debatable because someone else has their own different definition and understanding on how to live life.
This is basically straight solipsism. Yes, people differ. Yes, people even differ reasonably.
But whether or not we agree on what the good life is, the fact of the matter is that both of us have some idea of the good which we are advocating for. If it's a disagreement over different definitions on what the ideal life is, then again, we are agreed: the ideal life is the one most with living.
I bet we also disagree on what to do about the economy. That doesn't cause me to doubt that the economy as a concept has any valid substance.
The fact that a notion is debatable only shows that the notion is suitable for contemplation and conversation, not that it doesn't exist, isn't worth our time, inherently contradictory etc. etc, or whatever you meant to perjoratively imply.
It's debatable? So what? I wasn't aware philosophy was a debate free zone... so I really don't know what to do with this criticism. I would be far more worried about the substance of an idea if it weren't debatable and open to rational discourse regarding differing definitions.
If the primary use of philosophy (even this is assuming that philosophy is for its uses, rather than an end in itself) is to deal with suffering, then by golly, I think we have to admit the ideal life is one with a minimum of suffering
Which 1) again shows that philosophy cannot even do this without focusing on what the ideal is and 2) presents a fairly low bar. This is a very thin, attenuated kind of philosophy if that is all it achieves.
Philosophy teaches to be "better" in the sense of improving one's situation-- be it improving material conditions or well-being-- so long as it is within one's control. It teaches to be more pragmatic, which is where acknowledging reality comes in. One can recognise what is futile and what alternative options a person can take by being armed with both cognitive and meta-cognitive tools from what other philosophical thoughts can teach.
Achieving, or at least coming close to, a good life is paradoxical is what I am saying. It's not necessarily objective nor subjective. On the one hand, individuals have their own desires, understanding and definition of what a good life is. Then on the other hand, I think we can both agree that obsessing on social status and validation, chasing fleeting short-term pleasures, and not looking after the well-being of yourself and others do not constitute a good life. In my opinion, a good life needs to have wider net benefit for everyone's well-being-- that much is objective. But the approach on how to do so is very much subjective.
I kind of agree with you that an ideal life is probably with the minimum suffering, but it is a slippery slope because without it, that could include also avoiding adversity. There is no growth and maturation for the individual and society if there is no adversity. It is as integral to life as happiness and pleasure. If there is no adversity, how could one know what the latter is, and vice versa?
> It's not necessarily objective nor subjective.
Then it's anything. What an empty sentence.
> But the approach on how to [achieve a good life that benefits everyone's well-being] is very much subjective.
I disagree. People can reasonably disagree about things that have objective value, and do so for a variety of reasons ranging from ignorance, to lack of clarity, to misplaced judgment, misunderstanding, or just plain disagreeing about philosophical priors.
The idea that general well-being is subjective is itself kind of silly, given that we are talking about something that is universal, or at least adheres equally to every human being. There's no good reason for thinking that something which is true of 100% of human beings is subjective.
And if it isn't true of 100% of human beings, well, we aren't really talking about a good life with a wide enough net that can describe benefiting everyone's well being, well are we?
> I kind of agree with you that an ideal life is probably with the minimum suffering, but it is a slippery slope because without it, that could include also avoiding adversity.
So, let's not define it that way. If we think that adversity is a necessary condition for the good life, then let's go from....
To
And to that I would say: this is not a philosophy by which a human being can actually live because we do not and can not know what kinds of adversity, and in what amounts, would actually benefit us except in hindsight (if at all).
Which makes pursuing the good life an impossible task to do, short of seeking adversity for adversity's sake and hoping to not be overwhelmed.
This ends up defining the acquisition of that ultimate good, the good life, as something that can only happen by chance. And I disagree that the good life is basically equivalent to being lucky.
> The idea that general well-being is subjective is itself kind of silly, given that we are talking about something that is universal, or at least adheres equally to every human being. There's no good reason for thinking that something which is true of 100% of human beings is subjective.
Some people think their answer to good and/or meaningful life is to have raise a family with children, others think they're happy being childless. I think we can both agree that either desires/goals are perfectly valid. It's complexity like this that rather makes defining arbitrarily what a good life is difficult. If we are to discuss universal human values, it's the mutual respect-- golden rule-- that is arguably the most enduring and arbitrary (but even morality is arguably a construct and therefore subjective but that is a discussion worthy of its own time).
>And to that I would say: this is not a philosophy by which a human being can actually live because we do not and can not know what kinds of adversity, and in what amounts, would actually benefit us except in hindsight (if at all).
You put words into my mouth and this is what I am trying to get across. We don't know what adversity will face, and philosophy in general teaches that whatever comes, be prepared for it with the knowledge and wisdom granted to us by experience and education. It's not seeking adversity for adversity’s sake, but rather learning to accept that the unpredictability of negative externalities is a fact of life and overcoming the challenges thrown at us. Humans could not possibly foresee all sufferings and prevent those from happening. The best example is technology. As much as mass, instant digital media have eased our communications, this also led to an entirely different set of problems for humans, especially with fake news and mental health.
> I kind of agree with you that an ideal life is probably with the minimum suffering, but it is a slippery slope because without it, that could include also avoiding adversity. There is no growth and maturation for the individual and society if there is no adversity. It is as integral to life as happiness and pleasure. If there is no adversity, how could one know what the latter is, and vice versa?
You clearly stated that a life without adversity would be an impoverished one, resulting in no growth or maturity for the individual or society, and then stated it is as integral as happiness and pleasure.
Ergo a life insufficient in adversity is as affirmable as an unhappy life, and we ought to seek adversity in a similar manner to how we seek happiness when either is deficient.
I'm not "putting words into your mouth." I'm explaining what your position entails if we take it seriously.
If the good life requires adversity for maturity and and growth (and maturity and growth are goods) then anyone not enduring adversity, or enduring an insufficient amount of it, or enduring the wrong kinds of it, or in the wrong admixtures, will be lacking in those goods.
If we should be pursuing the good life (which we should, by definition) then we shall need to seek out adversity. And this is an incredible game of hazard, pregnant with all kinds of dangers that make the good life impossible.
> Some people think their answer to good and/or meaningful life is to have raise a family with children, others think they're happy being childless.
Then we have people who differ on what makes the ideal life objectively worth living. And if you're saying some people think the good life consists in raising a family for them, but they don't think doing so will result in the good life for others, we are talking about preferences, or something smaller than the good life, not the good life itself.
> philosophy in general teaches that whatever comes, be prepared for it with the knowledge and wisdom granted to us by experience and education.
This is a fine explanation of what philosophy is for (if we are to value it for its uses) but I'll note that it has nothing essentially to do with adversity.
Wisdom is also needed for correct judgment and action when dealing with boons and good fortune. If philosophy is for helping us deal with whatever comes it's primary importance cannot be in the managing of adversity.
From certain Eastern philosophical and Stoic perspective, attempting to rid adversity is a fruitless endeavour and one should come to terms with its existence as concept. But neither schools of thought would recommend anyone to deliberately subject themselves to extreme adversities. Running every morning or working in a job under tight schedule is not the same as being in abject poverty or slavery. There are certain adversities that are more manageable which builds character.
> If philosophy is for helping us deal with whatever comes it's primary importance cannot be in the managing of adversity.
Good fortune is as unpredictable and random as facing difficulties. Some philosophies, namely Buddhism and Stoicism, cautions people to not be spoiled by good fortunes, because I think we both know that this could lead to the person being complacent. Philosophy could also teach to re-shift one's perspective and continually be pro-active to resolving problems that could be reasonably managed.
> Then we have people who differ on what makes the ideal life objectively worth living. And if you're saying some people think the good life consists in raising a family for them, but they don't think doing so will result in the good life for others, we are talking about preferences, or something smaller than the good life, not the good life itself.
Then would you agree that pursuing what a good life is is also subjective? That is basically my point. Defining good life is as objective as subjective. I am just positing my views based from Eastern concept of yin and yang.
> Then would you agree that pursuing what a good life is is also subjective?
No, I'm not saying pursuing the good life is subjective. You aren't listening very well. People can have a great many opinions about something and be wrong. There is a difference between opinion and knowledge. The fact that people disagree does not necessarily mean that the topic is subjective. It may also mean that one or both of them is wrong.
Saying that the good life is as objective as it is subjective nonsense, it's a contradiction in terms.
I'll also note that apparently we've moved the goal posts. We went from speaking about how philosophy, as a general thing, ought to be primarily focused on the acceptance and management of adversity, while I wanted to point out that even if this was true (I don't think it is) it doesn't make any kind of sense to say that philosophy has nothing to do with the ideal.
And now we've got this line that this is all based on the concept of yin and yang, which like, nothing you have said has much to do with that at all, and certainly doesn't help explain why you think philosophy does not deal with ideal and should be focused on the management and utility of adversity.
I appreciate the differences in opinion, but if you have read the article, the author himself does imply there is room for subjectivity as much as for objectivity when it comes to handling life situations in general using philosophy. I mean, life itself is too complex, it is a paradox. As the author stated: "there is no formula".
So two things. First, the thought of the story of human life being meaningful if the outcome is a just society is a strange one, especially considering the deemphasizing of telos earlier on (focusing on process instead of projects). This is not only because it focuses on the end of a project, obtaining a just society, but because life goes on after that's obtained. There's no end to history, so it can always be changed, and potentially for the worse, for society to become unjust again, and thus the story of human life becoming unmeaningful once again. The only way out of that I see is for humanity to be extinguished on a good note somehow.
The second and more important thing to me is the focus on atelic activities. Like I agree it's obviously better that if we are able to derive meaning/feel good/have fun/be happy/have a good reason to live/live well/etc at least more through the atelic processes than telic ones then that would be fantastic because those are the activities that make up almost all of life. But I don't know how to think of those as the most meaningful for myself and desperately want to. Somebody please help with that lmao
I agree to an extent. But a 50 million year just society, even if it fell eventually, would be a worthwhile legacy to leave. Maybe that's beyond us, but something more brief, yet still fantastic, doesn't lose it's meaning because it ends.
I agree, just pointing out the lapse in good reasoning in the interview.
I've never heard of anyone saying "The real practical value of philosophy comes through focusing on the ‘ideal’ life"
Either way.. doesn't "helping us deal with life’s inevitable suffering" and "navigating loneliness, grief, failure, injustice, & the absurd" practically result in some form of "ideal" life?
It's like saying "The purpose of breathing isn't to keep us alive, it's to pass air to the lungs, provide the body with oxygen, and remove carbon dioxide."
Seems like their use of "ideal life" is the imagined one free of "loneliness, grief, failure, injustice, and the absurd" whereas your use here is one in which those are well-managed but still present. I see how both could be called ideal lives, but they're not the same in my eyes, or I doubt anybody's really.
Sure, there are different uses of the word ideal.. but I still haven't heard anyone say philosophy is about focusing on being free of those things.
Maybe it's just my impression.. but philosophy is about discussing/exploring principals about life, meaning and the nature of knowledge.
It's those and a lot more. I don't really know of anyone explicitly promoting an attempt to live free of suffering either. It just seems like an implicit composite built out of background cultural pushes in that direction that make people feel worse for failing and whatnot, which philosophy then uses as a foil in talking about how to actually get through the suffering instead of the implicit idea of forgoing it entirely.
"I don't really know of anyone explicitly promoting an attempt to live free of suffering either"
As far as I'm aware Nondualism, or Advaita (in Hinduism and Buddhism) does this.
"talking about how to actually get through the suffering instead of the implicit idea of forgoing it entirely."
I suppose that's what it would seem like (getting through the suffering) to those who haven't forgone it entirely. The suffering is just not experienced... But others might think the suffering is being experienced by the person they are observing because they imagine it through empathy.
Eg. If I say I haven't experienced racism.. despite being a middle eastern/south asian ethnic minority in a western country. Others might think I'm still living through racism.. like it's a tangible physical thing, when it's really just a matter of perception.
>"I don't really know of anyone explicitly promoting an attempt to live free of suffering either"
>As far as I'm aware Nondualism, or Advaita (in Hinduism and Buddhism) does this.
I am not sure I would agree with this. Can you point to any Advaitic philosophy sources that supports this?
"CAN SUFFERING BE RELIEVED? Absolutely! Yes! It happens through an intuitive recognition that we’re not independent. Rather we are essentially linked to something vastly bigger." https://www.advaita.org/
Get your ads out of here.
"Vedanta is a systematic unfoldment of the teachings of the Upanishads. It deals with the question of self-identity and liberation from worldly suffering." https://www.unbrokenself.com/what-is-advaita-vedanta/
FYI Vedanta is the path/method to Advaita.
Vedanta literally means "end of the Vedas" (Veda + anta (means "the end of")).
To suggest that Advaitic philosophy, which is embodied for the most part in the Principal Upanishads and the Brahmasutras, is about "liberation from worldly suffering" is to mischaracterize some of the core themes of the philosophical system.
Advaitic philosophy, among other things, pays particular attention to the impermanence of "the Self" and posits an immanent ontology in which the complex relationality between the Brahman, the Atman, the Jiva, the Jivatman plays out.
Some useful insights into this complex and multivaried philosophical system may be found in the works of Deutsch & van Buitenen (1971), Isaeva (1995), Comans (2000), Sarma (2007), among others.
I wasn't claiming that ""liberation from worldly suffering"" was the only aspect of nondualism. In case you forgot, I was responding to you being unaware of anyone that explicitly promotes the idea of being free from suffering. Now you are attempting to school me on something that you were unaware of, after I brought it to your attention.. Hilarious.. 😂😂😂
I am not trying to school you on anything tbh. I don't care enough to do so. It is your mischaracterization that I was pointing to. But again, I don't care enough about furthering this discussion.
I interpreted that to mean “philosophy is most valuable when applied to practical life instead of merely theoreticals.”
That's still fairly trivial.
Life isn't theoretical. It's just about the least theoretical, abstract, disinterested thing a person could possibly be involved with.
I think it follows pretty simply that a philosophy that isn't about living isn't going to be useful in informing us how to live.
Oohhh, I might have found a new blog to follow!
Same!
Glad to have you 🙂
Philosophy is the language practice of shoving isolated and/or collective problems into a memory hole in order to reduce stress on a given individual.
I think Kieran Setiya makes Stoicism out to be the philisophy of the doormat. Did I miss something or did this piece say a whole lot of nothing? Was there a take away?
Stoicism is perhaps the most misunderstood philisophy of the modern era (aside from maybe Existentialism). Stoics were rationalizing emotion. Problematic as that may be, you can have a discussion on this, but they were not stifling emotion or avoiding emotion, they were attempting to tackle the problems that arise from irrational emotion (in order to live the good life).
Anger to Stoics was always wrong, and the most rational emotion is love. It is misleading of Setiya to say that Stoics argue we should stifle grief. Also misleading to cite James' take on Slaves in the American South as a reaffirming source to this notion Stoics just ... take it.
"Rail against even things you can’t control" - Yeah Stoics would disagree. But there is nothing to say Stoics would passively take whatever comes. In the case of slavery in America; a Stoic icon would be Harriet Tubman, a Stoic anti-hero John Brown. Praise whoever you want, and argue the case for which hero is better - just stop misinterpreting Stoic thought.
In the end Setiya makes a rather unprofound claim it is best to sometimes help people with grief by saying " “I hear you” — rather than a solution to it. " and how ironic because what could be more Stoic?
Ramble over. I appreciated the read, I just hoped for more out of someone who teaches at MIT. Am I wrong here?
No, philosophy is in a disgraceful state.
Just don't tell people what a comprehensive philosophical teaching about life and death is called. Reddit does not like that word.
That's because there's no validity to such obnoxious claims, because they are used as vehicles for social control, and because they tend to be used as cause to attack non-adherents.
In reality, nobody knows what happens when we die, and all evidence suggests "nothing, nothing at all". Anyone claiming to the contrary - that is claiming to have a truly comprehensive philosophy as to life and death - is a liar, a charlatan. Nothing is that simple, and nobody actually knows anything about the areas they claim knowledge of. It's so obvious that this is true, and yet people continue to fall for the con.
Any wonder that many of us are frustrated by this tired and well-abused concept? The 8-letter word you're referring to has little useful place in philosophy. There are a few good ideas (which also exist elsewhere in more reasonable forms), but by and large it should be used as a cautionary tale: a warning of the dangers and limitations of "faith", and a reminder of the value of skepticism.
religious beliefs will never go away. they are ingrained into humanity.
I hope that's not true. Lies, especially lies that hurt people, should be allowed to die.
I'm not talking about any specific religious belief, unless you believe that everything unprovable is a lie.
No, I believe the feigned certainty that tends to attract followers is a lie. It's clear that no one really knows. We've looked at it every which way. If there's any kind of "after", it doesn't interact with the "here and now".
Sorry I don't follow what obnoxious claims are invalid?
>a comprehensive philosophical teaching about life and death is called
...?
Are you being willfully obtuse, or do you not grasp the point that "faith" in an afterlife is driven by lies told for the sake of controlling and profiting by others?
For dialogue to happen both sides need to be willing to listen. Your use of derogatory words for no reason says you're not ready to and overall seems to believe you've figured life already.
no, both sides do not need to be willing to listen.
one side makes claims that have no evidence or proof, the other supposedly bases beliefs off of evidence. as such there is no 'both sides' as the premise of each sides beliefs are contradictory.
there are no rational, tangible reasons to be religious other than wanting to be (its a story, do you put equal weight to the greek pantheon and Zeus as you do an afterlife or major religion?)
"Are you being willfully obtuse?" was a serious question, and phrased quite innocuously. On the list of potentially "derogatory" words, "obtuse" ranks right up there with "meany head". I can gather why someone might be offended by the underlying suggestion, but "derogatory language"? Give me a break.
Though I believe I can surmise the answer: Yes, you are being willfully obtuse. That is, you knew exactly what I meant, and you asked only because you were seeking a foundation for some straw-man or feckless equivocation, to aid in defense of religion or the existence of the supernatural.
I could be wrong, but judging from your initial comment deriding redditors for anti-theism, in concert with this? Seems unlikely...
>overall seems to believe you've figured life already
No, what I've "figured out" is simply what I said. Religious folks, particularly religious leaders - who "seem to believe they've figured [out] life already" - are either intentional liars or deluded fools. Nobody has those answers, and they are lying whenever they say they do.
Lol now you downvote me before replying. I won't even bother reading your crap. Bye.
Frames do not need to be true to be useful. You can collect frames for thinking and put them on like sunglasses to look at a question from differing perspectives. This builds out a tool kit to be used that allows seeking optimal solutions to whatever challenge is put in front of you.
Let's be specific "the customer is always right". This is a frame. A small phrase or idea to guide how to approach a circumstance. Is the customer always right? Obviously no. Is it beneficial as a business to treat every situation as if the customer is right, even when they're not? Yes. A bad experience converted often results in the most positive reviews. Good marketing for more business. Thus the frame is useful without being true.
Your brain has a control panel. You're a robot, complete with levers and buttons connected to your brain that can be pushed. Is this true? It doesn't have to be to be useful. You can learn what creates motivation to focus yourself.
Philosophy is a warehouse filled with frames for thinking. When you're stuck the warehouse provides additional options to try on to see if it gets you un-stuck from the problem at hand. Can keep trying on a new frame until something works.
It sounds too simple but in a very literal way you can shape your experience with reality using frames. As an experiment imagine you're sitting down and looking out at your room through a pair of VR goggles. Imagine it's all computer generated and you're piloting a giant robot interacting in this space. Next time you have lose an item and can't find it try this framing. When there is an object sitting right in front of you you can't see, shifting into the VR world frame makes it possible to see the lost object in front of you. It's disconcerting that the trick works. Who knows what reality is actually made of. We can't know that. But it's a level up in that reality to learn how to put on and take off frames.
With regard to black pill material. To my opinion those are the works of poor frames. You can pick up and put on other frames to program your brain into other modes of thinking. Get unstuck. Frames can be constructed into a personal story. A personal narrative or motto that guides your actions. This builds an operating system you can control to program your brain. You find a narrative motto in Navy SEALs and many organizations to guide behaviors in a productive way. If you do not choose to construct a narrative for yourself a fraud will give you one. Manipulative frauds usually craft these as a mental prison, a feature beyond your control which takes away your agency. Breaking out of that mental prison is as easy as opening the door by writing out your own narrative. You can author your own operating system. This is another level up.
When the premise shows assumption...
"Suffering" is only inevitable if one has expectations about how the future must unfold, and then adds emotional investment to that imagined scenario.
Looks a lot like a child's hurt - "the future can be this and only this and if not, anger/pain/fear" may feel emotionally real, yet it is seldom fact.
[deleted]
Well shit homie I coulda told you that
As much as I grow tired of philosophy that is layered in centuries of not even arguments, but like systems and methods of discourse of a few dudes that you need to be a graduate student to parse... if this is the alternative, we'll, it's obvious why we continually need to validate "philosophy" as a valuable endeavor.
Although, of course, if one were to successfully do just that, it'd put people in the philosophy industrial complex out of work so maybe that's the unspoken rule???
Philosophy inevitably leads to suffering.
Great book called “the consolations of Philosophy” echos this sentiment. Great read.
“sometimes life be like that”
Im sorry. How is this news?
You don't have to "deal" with the Absurd. You can just accept it as absurd, as crazy as that sounds.
That being said, I appreciate this article
"life's inevitable suffering" noooo! i am throwing tomatoes
The obstacle is the way.
I disagree
I think it helps us deal with both the highs and the lows.
In Sikh philosophy. It says contentment is better than happiness and sorrow. To consider them the same.
Please keep in mind our first commenting rule:
> Read the Post Before You Reply
> Read/listen/watch the posted content, understand and identify the philosophical arguments given, and respond to these substantively. If you have unrelated thoughts or don't wish to read the content, please post your own thread or simply refrain from commenting. Comments which are clearly not in direct response to the posted content may be removed.
This subreddit is not in the business of one-liners, tangential anecdotes, or dank memes. Expect comment threads that break our rules to be removed. Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban.
This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.
“Inevitable suffering” - I think I’ll skip His class
What a depressing thread. Holy fuck.
Yeah no this is just wrong.
Literature and storytelling is about liberating yourself from past and current emotions and struggles by discovering someone do the same.
Philosophy is purely about idealizing the world. That is philosophy. Anything liberating is comedy, literature and traveling.
This is what happens when females do philosophy for long periods of time. They start bringing their problems to the Preacher
philosophybreak OP t1_it6lttl wrote
Abstract
In this in-depth interview, MIT philosopher professor Kieran Setiya argues philosophy is at its most effective when it engages with a simple fact: life is hard. He believes that, rather than strive and yearn for an elusive ‘best life’, we should think instead about how to live well. Over the course of the discussion, Kieran demonstrates how it is the process of philosophical contemplation, not just the content of it, that can help us to navigate adversity. The interview covers grief, injustice, failure, the meaning of life, and explores the limitations of ‘ideal theory’, Stoicism, and materialistic conceptions of success.