ARTHUR SCHOPENHAUER: STUDIES IN PESSIMISM
Once again i must ask: Has there ever been a great thinker without facial hair?
The answer is no.
ON THE SUFFERINGS OF THE WORLD.
Unless _suffering_ is the direct and immediate object of life, our existence must entirely fail of its aim. It is absurd to look upon the enormous amount of pain that abounds everywhere in the world, and originates in needs and necessities inseparable from life itself, as serving no purpose at all and the result of mere chance. Each separate misfortune, as it comes, seems, no doubt, to be something exceptional; but misfortune in general is the rule.
I know of no greater absurdity than that propounded by most systems of philosophy in declaring evil to be negative in its character. Evil is just what is positive; it makes its own existence felt. Leibnitz is particularly concerned to defend this absurdity; and he seeks to strengthen his position by using a palpable and paltry sophism. It is the good which is negative; in other words, happiness and satisfaction always imply some desire fulfilled, some state of pain brought to an end.
posted by Esteban at 10:32 AM
10 Comments:
Any great thinkers with breasts??
Yes of course kate!
i was going to make that distinction...but chose not to revise...as you can see simon de beauvoir has breasts and no facial hair
correction: there are no great male thinkers without facial
i agree with you, in that i think that fulfillment and content are often products of some type of suffering. in fact ..i think they are always.. or what reward would there be in happiness. perhaps the emotion would not even exist, because there would be nothing less for which to compare it to. pessimism is indeed the starting point of something more, and is therefore necessary.
this makes me ponder what kind of people are truely HAPPY, though. we know of the abounding hatred that envelops our world, and i have a hard time finding justification for such misfortunes of those people. guess ill wonder.
.....and russell i think you fit the persona of brilliant thinkers with facial hair. cheers!
Eileen!
I also wonder about the nature of suffering and contentment. Your language of fulfillment is interesting…something must be accomplish or carried out to fulfill. In our contentment, are we pleased due to a lack of suffering, or fulfilled by a deed of joy? In short, is joy merely the lack of suffering?
You wrote, ‘Pessimism is indeed the starting point of something more’
I wonder where your thoughts lead us in this statement. Is pessimism a stepping stone? If so, where does it take us next?
i think essentially that one cannot know good unles they have known somehting less than so. (taco cabana is good until you've had La Fonda)... you know?
So no, I don't think that joy is the lack of suffering all together - I think it is the result of it. Redemption is inevitable in any suffering that doesnt kill you. It stregthens you and strength is redemption in that sense.
As for the pessimism statement, i think it is most common in human nature to doubt before we trust. and maybe proof that follows, whether your doubt proved to be true or you were proven wrong, is all the more sweeter.....
Still trying to wrap my head around this part:
‘It is the good which is negative; in other words, happiness and satisfaction always imply some desire fulfilled, some state of pain brought to an end.’
- SCHOPENHAUER
Schopenhauer seems to be saying something sort of counterintuitive. ‘It is the good which is negative.’ Would he say, using you restaurant analogy, that Taco Cabana is good because it causes you to suffer and in eating at La Fonda your suffering is decreased or relieved, thus making you happy?
This is intriguing. Great discussion.
Augustine would contend that evil is a "privation," the absence of the "good." If we follow this pattern we might say that "suffering" is the natural response to such absence. It may be that Schopenhauer is building upon this framework. I'm not sure he is, but it seems that we can say within his understanding that suffering's "positive" aspects are those which recognize the absence of what was intended. The "good", therefore, is the natural state of things. Suffering is a response to unnatural affairs.
Thoughts?
I knew he was ringing a bell…I recently finished Augustine’s Confessions, wonderful stuff.
‘within his understanding that suffering's "positive" aspects are those which recognize the absence of what was intended’
I hear you, but I guess the real question deals with the end of that sentence ‘what was intended.’ Is Schopenhauer arguing that suffering is natural or that happiness (goodness) is the natural state? With Augustine it seemed that the natural state on earth was perverse to the will of God, therefore bad (suffering, sin)…or as you said, humans lacked the goodness of God; therefore in that lacking they were evil. (I think it is worth noting that I try to use perversion in the same sense that Augustine did, I believe is etymology brings us to ‘per’ meaning ‘away’ and ‘vert’ meaning ‘turn’.) or maybe I just wanted to write etymology…
Well, I'd have to read Schopenhauer in order to get a sense of what he thought, ultimately, on the subject at hand. But I still think it is worth unpacking our understanding of what is "natural."
I'm probably more inclined to see the economy of God's Kingdom (peace, love, charity, hope, passion, wholeness) as the norm and that we just happen to find ourselves in a place in between what was intended and what will ultimately be. I don't know. Is nature what we can sense, or is it the underlying constant? Or, are there two natures? I think this is where Plato comes in.
i think Plato would be a perfect foundation for 'natural' in this sense...Augustine was very influenced by the neoplatonist...hence the rising up towards God and see 'the truth which is' something along those lines...
anyway, it is problematic to mix and match the language of schopenhaur , augustine, and plato...
now im thinking...it seems schopenhaur is viewing 'natural' i think, as the default state of the human being...suffering. which in plato and augustine's views would be the unnatural earthly state...
point being perhaps...life on earth=suffering?
Postar um comentário
<< Home