I realized that when things go too well for me and I'm too happy for too long that I self sabotage in order to bring my life back down to a comfortable level of ... meh.
@Tfmonkey Schopenhauer pointed out that all of life is suffering. You struggle and strive to get what you want. If you don't get it, you're miserable. If you do get it, you eventually get bored, so you make up a new goal to go on struggling for. In any case you're fucked.
@philosophy That's why I prefer Camus to Schopenhauer. You push that rock up that hill, knowing it will roll back down and nothing will be accomplished, and you enjoy it.
@Tfmonkey I think existentialism, and Nietzche, is just trying to paint lipstick on a pig. Schopenhauer doesn't pull punches. He calls it a pig.
The Pali Buddha is the same: all consciousness is suffering. All of it. But! There's a way out.
@philosophy Ultimately, there is no one true "philosophy" that is good for everyone. Philosophy is the "art of living", but different philosophies might benefit different people.
In the end, you haven't killed yourself, so you're living for something, and whatever that thing is appears to be worth the suffering of existence, so just make the most out of it.
@Tfmonkey I might agree that there's no use getting attached to a philosophy or making it part of one's identity or ego...if that's what you mean.
But at the same time, I think Schopenhauer's entire point is that it's not worth it. You can only delude yourself into thinking there's something that's worth it. He didn't think suicide made a difference either though, as the Will to Life lives on anyways.
I think philosophy goes beyond living too. It can be a search for Truth.
@philosophy truth isn't objective, and whether something is "worth it" is also subjective. That's a value question, and we know from economics and common sense that value is wholly subjective.
It's cool that you like Schopenhauer and don't think it's "worth it" and that any value anyone finds is a delusion. That's YOUR subjective value.
@Tfmonkey Opinions aren't objective, but saying that truth isn't objective is a category error. The entire point of the concept is that it is what it is despite your feelings for it. I agree that a concept like "worth it" is subjective, but not truth.
Saying there is no truth is a self-contradiction. So is saying truth is not objective (because you've just made an objective claim about truth).
@philosophy This is the core issue. There is no such thing as objective truth. Truth is a characteristic of proposition which can be true or false, but philosophical "truth" cannot exist because values cannot be true or false because the only way to judge anything is through consequentialism, which relies entirely on values and preferences.
Also saying "there is no objective truth" is a preposition that is true, but truth is not an object itself.
Watch this video please
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_jLJczkOU44
@Tfmonkey Ok, I watched and I see where we’re talking past each other.
You’re calling out reifying truth. Reification is a fallacy where one conceives an abstract concept as a concrete object. There’s no concrete object of “truth," "justice,” or “goodness." I totally agree with you on this point.
My contention could restate “There is no truth” to “The set of true propositions is empty,” which is clearly a contradiction. The set of true propositions is non-empty.
@Tfmonkey However, this point has been contentious. We’re expressing a view called “Nominalism,” which holds that abstractions don't exist. “Realists” think they do exist in a concrete way, Plato being foremost among them. Kant is known for a third view: “Conceptualism,” which holds they exist only as mental objects.
A modern, foundational read on nominalism is WVO Quine’s paper, “On What There Is.” An interesting response which challenges Quine’s view is “Holes” by Lewis and Lewis.
