Pessimism in a way

Post Reply New Topic

This looks like a useless absolute pessimism in a way. But still I think it's not. We have no impact on what happens in the world. Voting? ridiculous! were the 200 votes in Florida what decided the course of the world in the following eight years? if this were the case we should admit that the destiny of the world is left to a "cynical chance". So we should not delude ourselves that we can control this destiny. Why not better find something else. I have no properly religious faith, but I prefer some form of faith, abandonement to some love of the cosmos which is independent from our intentional "rational" acts, than the delusionary will do do this or that to save the humans, and more generally Life on the planet.


And this is the pessimist view.
When you know that humans are at least 100,000 years old and that in this span of time nothing is changed in their physical and mental structure, that in the last 6,000 years all is changed in the organization of social life and in the production of means of subsistence; that population has skyrocketed from 6m to 6b, don't you ask yourselves: is there a future for humans in the next 100 years. And if not (as I frankly believe) wouldn't the question be not "what do we have to do?", how do we have to live in a world without future? Difficult answers to that, but this is for me the only direction.

These musings of yours will do no one any good. You should strive to be happier.

I know. But strive is a mistake. If I have a recommendetion it it not to strive except in your personal intimate domain and this might mean to be mute, which I am after all, for disposition and a degerative rotting of my vocal chird

Don't strive, then. Don't try. Lay down and die. Give up. Surrender.

I have no pity for you because you're pathetic.

What a horrible thing to say! You make absolutely no contribution to the conversation. Paolo is asking a philosophical question. There may not be a solution. The solution if there is one, will be hypothetical anyway. What has trying harder/striving got to do with philosophical debate? One may as well have told Schopenhauer to go pull himself together!

I think Paolo equates mutism with the end of life.

People have accomplished far more while dealing with far bigger problems than vocal chord atrophy. The late Christoper Reeve comes to mind. His entire body was basically rotting away, yet he fought hard every day for a cause he believed in, right up until his death. Canada's own Terry Fox and Micheal J. Fox (unrelated) have similar life-situations.

So what I mean to say is that I wold have much more respect for a person who can turn misfortune into action than someone content to complain about their misfortune.

There is a thread initiated by Slowmutant about ways of dying, it takes 5 pages of WP

Thu Apr 10, 2008 1:59 am Post subject: Worst Ways to Die - Vote Now!

Cancer
Explosive Decompression
Crushed Skull
Immolation
Sevre Beating
Lots & Lots of Bees
Smothered
Drowned
Flesh-Eating Bacteria
Starvation
Poisoning
Blood loss

Which way is advised for me?

Mary Flannery O'Connor (25.3. 1925–3.8. 1964). One of the great authours of American literature, died of lupus at 39; O'Connor completed over two dozen short stories and two novels while lupus ravaged her body.


Carson McCullers, another great writer, suffered throughout her life from several illnesses By the age of 31, her left side was entirely paralyzed. She died in Nyack, New York, on September 29, 1967, McCullers dictated her unfinished autobiography, Illumination and Night Glare (1999), during her final months.

Franz Kafka died on June 3, 1924, apparently from starvation. The condition of Kafka's throat (TBC) made eating too painful for him, and since intravenous therapy had not been developed, there was no way to feed him, a fate resembling that of the main character of A Hunger Artist 1924, the year he died, in which he describes a man who is employed in a circus as an attraction, kept in a cage for starving.

I will not answer to other posts of Slowmutant from here on.

Ignoring the drunk in the bleachers yelling insults at those in the game, I would note that you, paulo make an irreplaceable contribution to this community.

It might be worth considering the perceived value created by scarcity and the perceived worthlessness of things that are too common.

If rubies were laying all over the street, they would have no value, but the dark red color of each individual ruby would still be just as lovely, and rubies aren't all the same.

When people are all over, it's far more difficult to value them, but if the world human population were reduced to a very small number of individuals, as supposedly happened with cheetahs, our uniqueness as a remarkable organism would seem far more significant.

In either case, the people as individuals would be no different.

It might be worth experimenting with a shift in perception, forgetting the existence of humanity and seeing only individuals. In this context, it is possible to make a meaningful difference.

Like you do, paulo.

What happens is somehow automatic. It’s a process, not a voluntary decision put out in a plan. Technique and struggle for power are the two ingredients. They both lead to higher production, higher productio to more population density. Higher production pushes out sophisticated lifestyles (cultures) that can survive only with less population density.
“The shepherd pushes out the hunter and the farmer pushes out the shepherd.” Then comes the industrial producer who pushes out hunters and farmers (farming has become now a branch of industry). Resources are depleted and new resources need to be found, through an intensification of productive methods. But this intensification requires an increasing division of labor, and division of labor means degradation of lifestyles and individual loneliness.
Nothing can stop this process. It’s like an avalanche. All attempts to stop the process has lead to greater tragedies.

The Khmer Rouge regime and Chinas Cultural Revolution come to mind Paolo.

Yes, Pol Pot, Mao, but also Lenin, Hitler and the great utopian "grand plans". And also the little utopias of some sects. Dostojevski's The obsessed, and Conrad's Under Western Eyes were prophetic discussions of this problem.

Paolo, you seem troubled by all this. Why does it trouble you?

As a young boy you were in Fascist Italy, and the aftermath of WWII was a huge mess in Italy wasn't it Paolo? So these musings are not purely academic in your case since you've lived in someone else's Utopia. Both political and economic ruin for your country at points of your life.

Not saying this is necessarily true, but suppose just an an exercise, we assume that these processes are inevitable and unalterable, like the coming of night, or the coming of winter, or the aging of the human body.

Suppose we assume, just for consideration, that I played no significant role in bringing these circumstances about and there is no possibility that I can change them. They're merely part of my surroundings, like the scenery or the weather.

If I utterly abandoned both guilt and responsibility for the fate of humanity, I still have each day of my life to live.

How should I conduct my own life today and tomorrow?

CanyonWind, the fate of humanity isn't up to you. It never was. Humanity as a whole determines the fate of the whole. Who are you to presume this responsibility, one individual among billions?

CanyonWind, assuming that you knew that you could not possibly change anything, then I suppose it could allow you to either sink into a depression or turn your talents towards hedonism, the arts or watching Jerry Springer everyday. The possibilities would only be limited by you own personal abilities and self imposed limitations.