Does anyone else here consider themselves both a Communist and also a philosophical Pessimist?
Do you believe that it is precisely because this reality we live in is so miserable, cruel, outright horrible for the vast majority that we therefore must show compassion by furthering and supporting the only political movement that seeks to improve conditions for the masses for whom life is mostly suffering?
To me it's the only position that makes sense. How could you not hold to the only politics that seeks to eliminate suffering in as far is possible?
While Schopenhauer may have been a conservative and an idealist, there is also a long and often forgotten history of materialistic, Marxist pessimism - although most of it is still pretty underground and still untranslated.
For example, the work of Philipp Mainländer (don't be distracted by his use of "God" as a metaphor for the Universe) has gained some influence of late, and there is also Sebastiano Timpanaro who I must admit I am yet to read for myself.
I'm not a big Zizek fan but he has also stated "a Communist Should Assume Life Is Hell" and spoken on how philosophical Pessimism and Marxism fit together very well, with Marxism presenting a solution to many of the problems of Pessimism.
In contrast, if you don't consider yourself a pessimist, why not? What do you think Leftypol?
>>2444268>Like what is pessimism? >>2444279>How is that pessimism?Philosophical Pessimism holds that, overall, in this reality suffering outweighs pleasure, that happiness is fleeting or unattainable. The universe wasn't created for us, nor with our happiness or wellbeing in mind.
That doesn't mean there's no happy moments. Some people's lives may be full of happiness and good experiences. But on the whole, existing is negative compared to non-being.
We do exist however, and so do others, and to most Pessimists we should be compassionate towards others because of these terrible circumstances we all find ourselves in.
And to many Marxist and Materialist Pessimist thinkers, the way to best improve overall happiness and wellbeing for living beings isn't idealistic nonsense like Nirvana, nor is an ascetic life of isolation and escapism. It is through achieving Communism and the benefits that will bring.
>>2444391Yes, he said once Communism removes most of people's suffering they'll realise how hollow, empty, pointless life is and many people will kill themselves.
Let's not pretend every philosopher doesn't have a few goofy ahh takes. A few silly predictions shouldn't distract from the broader picture.
>>2444454Im saying I reject your premise of it being one or the other.
You can implement solutions for many specific problems, which will of course improve things to a degree, but ultimately the basic premise of existence being hellish and full of suffering will remain.
>>2444458>You can implement solutions for many specific problems, which will of course improve things to a degree, but ultimately the basic premise of existence being hellish and full of suffering will remain.I already covered everything you said.
>Im saying I reject your premise of it being one or the other.Now you answered the question instead of dancing around it like a faggot.
< but ultimately the basic premise of existence being hellish and full of suffering will remain.Alright, why do anything, why come here and bitch about it? What is your purpose? Do you want my permission to jump on the train tracks? I give it to you.
>>2444245>Do you believe that it is precisely because this reality we live in is so miserable, cruel, outright horrible for the vast majority that we therefore must show compassion by furthering and supporting the only political movement that seeks to improve conditions for the masses for whom life is mostly suffering?This is dancing close to bourgeois socialism that Marx wrote specifically against, that socialism is about helping the miserable out. Marx's historical materialism argues that the movement to new modes of production are based on real developments and not idealistic theories of people "concerned" about people. Alienation is the process of taking a person's production from them, shown in capitalism as the form of wage labor. Misery is explained with his law of wages. This type of thinking is what lead to socdems and socdems are reactionaries, just "nice" ones except for the times they murder proles and communists like the SPD did.
I don't think you can link Marx himself to Pessimism, especially when you read his 1844 Manuscripts and his later theories on ideology. He expresses there is a "real" life somewhere, a natural, unalienated human life while pessimists think it is inherently miserable to be alive. Marx's Hegelian roots run in contradiction with pessimism. Theodor Adorno actually critiqued Hegel's idealism and Marx's materialism on these lines in Negative Dialectics. He basically argued that the productive forces do not march steadily along to a final synthesis (real Communism, or the end of class antagonisms).
Another contradiction is that Marx links misery to the wage system. Philosophical pessimism links it to an absolute state caused by consciousness itself. It also has nothing to do with "hope" and political praxis. That's not the focus of Marxist theory.
I'm not too familiar with pessimist philosophy but if it's just "life sucks right now, we should make it better" that's not a philosophy because that's basically every single ideology on the planet. It seems more focused on a real existence of misery, which runs in direct opposition to "ruthless critique." I'm sure you can find stuff in it that feels right but trying to incorporate it leads to Walter Benjamin, who was hardly a Marxist who also came up with that "messianic Marxism" that's been seen again in academia recently. You can read On The Concept of History (it's very short) for an idea of what he thought.
>>2446177>pessimism just means that life is le sufferingno it isnt. schopenhauer's pessimism is strictly kantian, by placing a categorical imperative toward the rejection of life by asceticism. as he writes, pessimism is the ultimate christian morality by a rejection of the world. to nietzsche, this is self-defeating and so the only way out is by changing our relationahip to suffering rather than accepting its unconditional whim.
>suffering does not make you strongeronly an idiot cannot learn from mistakes.
>>2446181>no it isnt. schopenhauer's pessimismIt is, and your following statement shows that it‘s a personal affair what people make of it. Philosophical pessimism itself is merely the assertion that there is more suffering in the world than there is happiness.
>only an idiot cannot learn from mistakes.You‘re pulling a Motte and Bailey here. This isn‘t about a mistake and whether or not you learn from it but suffering itself and the belief that suffering makes you stronger. This is actually a nuanced question because to a degree suffering makes you stronger, such as if you work out. However, people like Nietzsche believe there is a sort of linear relationship between suffering and growing stronger („What‘s doesn‘t kill you makes you stronger.“ being an explicit example of that), which is naïve. Suffering seizes to be productive quite early and merely damages the body and nervous system past that. This is not a matter of attitude, it‘s a physiological consequence, including when we speak of psychological suffering. People simply end up traumatized which diminishes them for the rest of their life unless they have a good therapist to work on it for years. Which leads me to my earlier point, it‘s support systems and happiness that make you stronger.
>>2446186>>2446188>Philosophical pessimism itself is merely the assertion that there is more suffering in the world than there is happiness.this is already a farce because it concerns opposite quantities rather than denoting a quality of being. what you should really be saying is that the world itself is evil, and good is a negation of the world, thus - just as schopenhauer does in reversing liebniz's dualism. its not that there is any good, but that there is just less bad; that is the pessimist view.
>This isn‘t about a mistake and whether or not your learn from it but suffering itself and the belief that suffering makes you strongermuch suffering comes from ignorance.
>nietzsche's linearitynietzsche was always sick, so saw how his regaining health made him feel even better than he would under an equilibrated condition. democritus says something similar i believe; hunger makes food taste better, for example, so indeed, privation is itself a condition of our desire for a thing and its subsequent pleasure. but as democritus also says, the man who desires most therefore lacks the most - lao tzu would say to stop desiring so that we have everything (by not having nothing), but as a westerner, i must give sway to my inherent dissatisfaction.
>Which leads me to my earlier point, it‘s support systems and happiness that make you stronger.90% of celebrities are miserable
90% of welfare recipients are miserable
comfort and dependence means suffering from success, which is an inverse of pessimism; too much pleasure brings pain, yet only pain can enliven pleasure.
Unique IPs: 24