/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.16805548]

Existence is experiencing suffering and producing cruelty

[Anonymous No.16805618]

>>16805548
Uhh have one fun w that

[Anonymous No.16805621]

>>16805548
my suffering compels me to alleviate others’ suffering.

[Anonymous No.16805632]

Good now try saying it without a being verb.
Kinda redundant.

You just said
IS-ness is cruel ment to produce cruelty.

existance seem to be more psychology than science to these continential bois

[Anonymous No.16805665]

Monitoring the thread for potential sufferers of life

***Hotline open 24/7***

[Anonymous No.16805670]

>>16805665
cringe

[Anonymous No.16805692]

>tfw the longer I stay on this board the more I hate German philosophy

[Anonymous No.16805718]

>>16805548
Well Schopenhauer what's if I enjoy suffering. Of myself and others? Then wouldn't life be worth something?

[Anonymous No.16805727]

>>16805621
Alleviation leads to hope, and hope is a subtle form of cruelty

>>16805621
To exist is to be both the consumer and producer of suffering

[Anonymous No.16805752]

>>16805718
Yours certainly would not.

[Anonymous No.16805798]

>>16805718
Well yes, but it is a cruel happiness most cannot accept

[Anonymous No.16805847]

>>16805621
Impossible, as suffering cannot be totally alleviated, as any time a small discomfort is done away with another takes it’s place. As Schopy himself said, life is a pathway between the two poles of pain and boredom, the further you get from one the closer you get to the other.

Being serious though, it is sad how many people who discuss this topic obviously haven’t read Schopenhauer because they talk about suffering as some type of misery that can be helped. The suffering permeates everything as struggle and manifests most commonly in man in his basic drives: hungry, horny, tired. These can never TRULY be alleviated: you eat and you get hungry again, you fuck and you get horny again, you sleep and you get tired again. That’s what he meant, and obviously if everyone who discusses him would actually read him this wouldn’t even need to be said.

[None !sex0lQafxY No.16805857]

>>16805548
No schoppy, existence is impermanence, dissatisfaction and nonself. And your philosophy is an accelerator of dissatisfaction.

[None !sex0lQafxY No.16805862]

>>16805857
Forgot pic

[Anonymous No.16805869]

>>16805548
But I'm just here chilling.

[Anonymous No.16805879]

>>16805548
Is life "cruel" if you are sado-masohist?

[Anonymous No.16805902]

>>16805879
It still is since life does not award me the sado-masochism I desire, my fetish in this regard ive only seen in some very specific parts of western countries and probably require some fee that makes it largely inaccessible for me to participate in real life, and would also require the woman to get off it lovingly while participating in the fetish with me

[Anonymous No.16806239]

Refuted by Nietzsche

[Anonymous No.16806256]

>>16806239
postmodernists refute nobody

[Anonymous No.16806269]

>>16805862
Honestly the more I look at Buddhism the more I think it's the only way worth living, but at the same time I think it's almost impossible to pull off in modern times.
I think it's intrinsically tied to rural life.

[Anonymous No.16806270]

>>16806256
>Nietzsche
>Postmodern
Retard

[Anonymous No.16806276]

>>16806269
Why? If anything it seems easier to live in modern times. Rural people have to kill what they eat for example, which pretty much dooms you for a few eons.

[Anonymous No.16806306]

>>16806276
>Rural people have to kill what they eat for example, which pretty much dooms you for a few eons.
This is actually my #1 argument against Buddhism, to which even Bhikkhus pretty much replied that you should re-adjust this view and think in a more global way. Original Buddha was OK with eating meat because he'd take all offerings from the lays, as long as the animal was not killed "specifically" for him. Right now this is simply a non-factor, people enjoy every day the products of torture, slavery, etc. without smearing their hands or even being away of the suffering they are causing somewhere else in the world. It is almost impossible, as you said, to directly create himsa. Actually, much of it might be done by machines in the future. I think it's retarded to think that you are not causing suffering in the modern world simply because you are not directly killing and exploiting. But if you do consider that, then we're way more fucked than anyone in the past. Our entire existence and economic model is built on "far from the eyes, far from the heart".

[Anonymous No.16806311]

>>16806306
*aware of the suffering

[Anonymous No.16806383]

>>16806306
>This is actually my #1 argument against Buddhism
Pretty much mine too. I haven't talked to any bhikkhus though but from my understanding of Buddhist morals is that you're actually not doing anything wrong if you are not personally involved in the immoral action. This is why a monk can eat meat if it was not specifically killed for him since he was not directly involved with it. In a similar vein the urbanite that buys factory farmed meat is not doing anything immoral at all, no matter how much suffering went into procuring that meat since he is not involved in the process nor was the meat killed specifically for him. Whereas the hunter that kills a deer that have lived a good life in nature, and then fills his freezer for a year with this meat have committed a great immoral action. The precepts are completely personal, and one still breaks them if you were to kill a terrorist about to slaughter an entire village. Of course most Buddhist would be willing to take on that bad karma for the sake of others but it is still a greatly immoral action that will cause you great suffering in the next lives.

[Anonymous No.16806389]

>>16805847
pain is unavoidable, suffering is optional

[Anonymous No.16806414]

>>16806383
Pretty much. But monks will generally say that you should think of these consequences and adjust your lifestyle accordingly as a lay. Monks themselves at this point are always vegetarian/vegan. It's a very weak argument philosophically speaking and it sorts of erodes the whole discipline into "do what you think is right and / or works within your urban lifestyle", but I didn't press on.

[Anonymous No.16806422]

>>16806269
I think you'd like Heidegger and Hegel, and the Christian life.

[Anonymous No.16806439]

>>16805847
as a hindu, Schopy says there is a state of life where there is no suffering.

[Anonymous No.16806476]

>>16805548
I have never read Schopenhauer, I plan to though, but everything I've heard of him tells me that we are kindred spirits.

[Anonymous No.16806485]

>>16805548
Yes!

[Anonymous No.16806497]

>>16806485
came here to post something like this

[Anonymous No.16806502]

Everyone itt should read Celine. goat suffering-core.

[Anonymous No.16806524]

>>16805718
Then your suffering would be the constant want of suffering that can never be fulfilled or escaped.

[Anonymous No.16806531]

>>16806502
Love Celine. Would suffer agin.

[Anonymous No.16806565]

>>16806422
I think I will end up trying to embrace the Christianity I rejected since childhood, and failing because it's even more watered down than Buddhism. Have you walked into a Catholic church and attended mass? People don't even have the faintest idea of what God means and the priests are simply reading a script. It's the laziest, most non-committal religion there is. I'll probably end up like DFW, I understand that God, belief against the evidence of rationality, is all that can keep a man safe from entropy. But what is the point of religion if there is no community built on it? I share a lot of his thoughts about irony as well, I think it's a cancer. I think Kaczynski was right on just about everything too, technology will slowly modify people into its servants. The depression epidemic and every other person being on SSRIs is definitely proof of this.
At the same time it's almost impossible to truly live a rural life, especially when you have a chronic condition and you depend on infrastructure simply to stay alive.
I think this line of thinking is pretty much the truth about modern times and I feel more fucked and blackpilled the harder I look around.

[Anonymous No.16806575]

>>16805548
and suffering is bad?

[Anonymous No.16806589]

>>16806575
>pinhead@cenobites has joined the chat

[Anonymous No.16806610]

>>16806565
You seem to lack confidence in the possibility to posses and understand what is good, as well as are too naively pessimistic about people across the world.

Not bustin' you here, just making my observation.

I recommend you definitely look into Heidegger (Die Spiegel interview) for understanding technology, which is not as necessarily bad a thing as Kaczynski thinks. I also think Christianity, as much as it and the world to which it belongs has decayed, still exists strongly. I'm sorry for the low quality of this post, I'm half in bed, but I highly recommend you watch these two videos:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_os-ysZJM_I
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_FvtrBSG8tk

Here's also a nice video that deals with some of those problems of community and dwelling:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xoybTk6TEX4

[Anonymous No.16806623]

>>16805548
then stop existing, retard

[Anonymous No.16806625]

One thing that bothers me about these Schopenhauer threads is that they don't go beyond a superficial discussion of muh suffering. But he is so much more! Neither his ethics is discussed nor his metaphysics nor his reception of Kant. One gets the sense that anons haven't gone beyond youtube videos and maybe some few introductory essays. I get that the theme of suffering is relatable, but at least try to engage with the material...

[Anonymous No.16806630]

>>16806625
i'm sorry about not reading a secondary source on vedanta and instead preferring the primary sources.

[Anonymous No.16806650]

>>16806630
Well then, where is the discussion of Hindu metaphysics/soteriology in this thread? All I see is third hand takes on "muh suffering"

[Anonymous No.16806764]

>>16806610
I will watch these and if the thread is still up by then I'll tell you what I think. Thanks anon.

[Anonymous No.16806813]

I wanted to read Schopenhauer ever since I learned Tolstoy loved his works but the amount of related philosophical readings I would have to get through, a lot of which I have no apparent interest in is daunting to say the least.

[Anonymous No.16806831]

>>16806813
It's very easy to get to Schopenhauer through Wagner's short prose works, so I'd recommend you start there.

[Anonymous No.16807223]

>>16806485
Kek

[Anonymous No.16807230]

>>16806485
Schops had sex with young virgins and did not contract stds like NEETzhce

[Anonymous No.16807455]

Anyone can hook me up with a guide to Schopenhauer?

[Anonymous No.16807468]

>>16807455
1. Stop thotposting.
2. Read Bryan Magee's book.

[Anonymous No.16808153]

>>16805548
>>16807230
It makes sense why Schops would say something like existence is experiencing suffering and producing cruelty, he had a tough life.

[Anonymous No.16808325]

>>16806269
Yeah because only rural retards could believe in the crazy buddhist religious shit

>bro just concentrate on your nose and you can speak to devas and mara! Have hallucinatory experiences by concentrating on your stomach! Think about death and decomposing bodies and you won't be born as a hungry ghost!

[Anonymous No.16808334]

>>16806414
Buddha specifically said notmeceryone should be monks. There different rules and precepts for lay people and monks.

[Anonymous No.16808909]

>>16805548
But it isn't. I fastidiously calculate my base level of enjoyment and have discovered with absolute certainty that I am happy more often than not, that my joys are far greater than my woes, and that even in hindsight my sufferings appear comical and entertaining more than cutting reminders of pain.

The blithe (well, probably not blithe) assertion that hurfa durfa happiness doesn't exist suffering is everywhere seriously seems like a mental disorder, as though Schopenhauer didn't realize that maybe there was just something wrong with him. Perhaps your range of emotion, your speed on the hedonic treatmill, indeed your very ability to feel genuine emotions are all on a spectrum of gradiants that are expressed as your conscious experience.

In that case--which I would say seems very much the case--the statement is basically just the equivalent of saying "I'm a crippling alcoholic and it's not my fault, it's genetic."

But that's wrong. Because it is, by definition, your fault. It's a fault, you have it. This has always puzzled me regarding people who say things like "accident of birth" when no such thing could possibly exist in a deterministic world. There are no accidents. Faults are not actions or choices, they are states of being. You can and should be judged based on what you are.

[Anonymous No.16808976]

>>16805847

[Anonymous No.16809024]

>>16806485
this is the post