ERE, Schopenhauer and the cycle of pessimism

[elegant]

Throughout my late twenties I've been heavily influenced by the writings of Arthur Schopenhauer, commonly known as the father of modern pessimism.

The foremost idea that struck with me was his argument that human beings cannot be happy because they are victims of both passion and boredom, that is, one wants to achieve something, does everything to get it, succeeds, then eventually gets bored with it, and wants to replace it by achieving something else.

For years I've been looking without success for a philosophy that can effectively counter this argument. It seems Schopenhauer was spot on in so many aspects. For example it can explain the high divorce rates in the western world; The upgrade-mania which is an important part of modern day consumerism; And the promotion seeking drive of most careerists.

One of my favorite aspects of ERE is the sharp distinction between needs and wants. This, and the importance given to doing "meaningful" stuff with one's newly found time, could perhaps counter Schopenhauer's pessimist cycle.

I'm having difficulties however organizing a coherent ERE counterargument. Would appreciate your help!

Peace

[Dream of Freedom]

In Greek mythology there was a creature called the phoenix. It was a metaphor for passion. The phoenix would live and then die by burning itself out. Then something odd would happen, a new phoenix would rise from the ashes. Schopenhauer was disturbed by this cycle and thought to do away with it. But do you really want a life without passion?

[Felix]

I think Schopenhauer has a lot in common with buddhism in terms of the description of the lack of long-term satisfaction to be derived from this-worldly endeavors.

http://members.pioneer.net/~tkerns/waol ... -budd.html

You may want to look into buddhist teachings on compassion and enlightenment and the eightfold path.

One argument against Schopenhauer is that he simply chooses the wrong perspective to look at the world. By trying to take a high-level view at the world, with all human endeavors simply being futile in the end, he rationalizes his pessimistic temperament. Life is mostly meaningful and interesting when looked at from a human perspective at a human timeframe. Taking will and representation as fundamental is metaphysics and as such arbitrary. Why not look at it as: enjoying chasing your own tail for a while and when it gets boring, finding something else and it doesn't matter if it is pointless or not anyway? You only need to make it through 80 years.

Campbell said it quite well:

People say that what we're all seeking is a meaning for life. I don't think that's what we're really seeking. I think what we're seeking is an experience of being alive.

Schopenhauer did not find it and then built his philosophy around it. At least that's my take on it.

[jennypenny]

I don't think happiness or satisfaction needs to be a permanent state of being for people to be considered 'happy'. I would change what you said to this...

"The foremost idea that struck with me was his argument that human beings cannot be happy because they are victims of both passion and boredom, that is, one gets inspired and wants to achieve something, does everything to get it (works hard, maybe discovers flow), succeeds, feels happy and satisfied, then eventually gets bored with it, and wants to replace it by achieving something else. Finds new inspiration. Repeats the process."

I guess I don't see that cycle as negative. It can be when people substitute "acquire" for "achieve" but I don't think it's inherently negative. The ERE argument would be to make sure your wants are your own, and not what consumer culture says you should want.

Maybe it's a personality thing? I kinda enjoy the 'wanting' part. Gets me out of bed in the morning.

[GandK]

I kinda enjoy the 'wanting' part. Gets me out of bed in the morning.

Agreed. I think that comfort begets stasis, and stasis is an unnatural state for humans.

[workathome]

Or, stasis is non-existent for humans. Every day is battle. Degree and acceptance vary dramatically.

[Dragline]

Sometimes I think that Schopenhauer's pessimism was more rooted in his personal experience and endless conflicts (and intellectual name-calling) with his contemporary philosophers than with any profound wisdom.

I tend to agree with Jenny that happiness or unhappiness are temporal states that tend to reoccur. Just the knowledge that one has been happy at some point in one's life and is likely to be so again if one keeps "moving" -- i.e., making an effort to experience life -- is often enough, at least for me.

You might look to the things that inspired Schopenhauer himself, such as Spinoza and the Upanishads. Of the Upanishads, Schopenhauer said: "How entirely does the Oupnekhat (Upanishad) breathe throughout the holy spirit of the Vedas! How is every one, who by a diligent study of its Persian Latin has become familiar with that incomparable book, stirred by that spirit to the very depth of his Soul! From every sentence deep, original and sublime thoughts arise, and the whole is pervaded by a high and holy and earnest spirit." Again he says: "The access to (the Vedas) by means of the Upanishads is in my eyes the greatest privilege which this still young century (1818) may claim before all previous centuries."

He didn't sound too miserable at that point.

Spinoza lived a classic ERE-sort of existence with few material comforts and no fame or glory in his own lifetime. The only thing he wasn't smart about was his health -- grinding lenses with chemical dust in an attic doesn't exactly do much for your respiratory system.

But outside of religious thought, I think classic Stoicism might be the best "quick answer" to Shopenhauer's pessimism. Seneca's Essay "On the Happy Life" and "On the Tranquility of the Mind" might be a good place to start.

Schopenhauer favored the arts as a means to appreciating "The Will"-- in its true form, especially music. Not sure he was far off with that. Listening to music usually makes me feel better or more connected than otherwise.

[Tyler9000]

Re: "human beings cannot be happy because they are victims of both passion and boredom" -- This is only true if a steady-state life is 1) possible, and 2) the ideal. I would argue that those most capable of finding and pursuing new passions in a changing world are the most happy in the long run.