[keybored]

> I'm not sure what point you are trying to make.

I’m not sure why people act coy when a straightforward mirroring of their own comment is presented. “What could this mean?” Maybe the hope is that the other person will bore the audience by explaining the joke?

> I don't look up to Freud and psychoanalysis doesn't work for everyone! I don't even necessarily recommend it.

Talking about your infant parental relationship as the be-all-end-all looks indistinguishable from that.

> > If you check, all the people who have this feeling of philosophical/ontological pessimism have a missing or damaged relationship with the mother in the first year or so.

.

> I'm not suggesting psychoanalysis specifically. Perhaps for others, CBT or religion or just a change in life circumstances will be enough.

Except for people who have “this feeling of philosophical/ontological pessimism”.

> > For them, not even Buddhism can help, since even the abstract idea of anything good, even if it requires transcendence, is a joke

Which must paint everyone who defends “suffering” in the Vedic sense. Since that was what you were replying to. (Saying that reality is suffering on-the-whole is not the same as “I’m depressed [, and please give me anecdotes about how you overcame it]”.)

> > The fact that these philosophies are dependent on the life situation to me is a reason to be a little sceptical of their universality. In my personal experience, in those 30 years of my life, I thought everyone thought the way I did, that reality was painful and a chore and dark and dim. Psychoanalysis helped me realise that other people actually were happy to be alive, and understand why I have not been my entire life.

I don’t know how broad your brush is. But believing in the originally Vedic (Schopenhauer was inspired by Eastern religions, maybe Buddhism in particular) concept of “suffering” is not such a fragile intellectual framework that it collapses once you heal from the trauma when your mother scolded you while potty training at a crucial point in your Anal Stage of development.

> YMMV = not everyone hates life

Besides any point whatever.

[bowsamic]

Worth noting that I trained formally in Buddhism under a teacher for a few years. I’m not unaware of all this

And the Vedic version of suffering is all full of love for reality, not wanting to delete it by smashing a button

[keybored]

> Worth noting that I trained formally in Buddhism under a teacher for a few years. I’m not unaware of all this

You trained personally for a few years and yet you make such sweeping statements/strokes that a neophyte is prompted to point out basic facts about this practice (apparently an adequate retelling since you don’t bother to correct me)? You might think this bolsters something (?) but I think the case is the opposite.

It helps to point out exactly what part that you are talking about (apparently not the Vedic gang). In fact this initial reply (just the above paragraph before the edit) seemed so out of place. Okay, so what are they talking about?

> And the Vedic version of suffering is all full of love for reality, not wanting to delete it by smashing a button

Oh, so it’s about the small wish to commit biocide.

It’s a clear category error to talk about love/want/hate when it comes to that statement. Because that’s beside the point. The point is clearly the wrongheaded, materialistic assumption that suffering will end if all life would end by the press of a button. And if you think that life on the whole is suffering? Then pressing the button is morally permissible.

It’s got nothing to do with hate.

It seemed interesting to me that someone would have such a “Schopenhauer” (not that I have read him) view of existence. You don’t see that every day.

[bowsamic]

I don’t really know what you’re talking about, sorry. This is coming off as incoherent rambling to me

[keybored]

My comment was saying that this part was about ending suffering, not about wishing ill-will. I don’t understand what’s unclear.

> > Reality is actually bad, and it should be far more intuitive to folks. The fact that positive experience is felt "quickly" and negative experience is felt "slowly" was all the evidence I needed that I wouldn't just press the "instantly and painlessly and without warning destroy reality" (benevolent world-exploder) button, I'd smash it!

> This is coming off as incoherent rambling to me

You do like to gesture vaguely and tell me that "I don’t know what this is". Meanwhile I have pointed out at least one instance where you flat out just contradicted yourself on psychoanalysis. Or "incoherent rambling" (on psychoanalysis) if you will

[noduerme]

I've read this whole thread twice and I'm struggling to understand what you're saying. Are you saying that if all life is suffering then ending all life is morally permissible? In that case, what do you do with the life of someone who says they're not suffering?

[keybored]

> I've read this whole thread twice and I'm struggling to understand what you're saying.

Join the club apparently. How nice.

> Are you saying that if all life is suffering then ending all life is morally permissible?

Yes. To demonstrate that the original, maligned comment wasn’t about ending all life because they hate life and existence. But in order to minimize suffering.

The premise is wrong from a Vedic perspective because it denies Moksha. But if you believe that Moksha doesn’t exist? Then it’s rational.

And the push-button argument will depend on what your stance on utilitarianism is. Specifically how you can make the choice for every life in existence (instead of them making it). Which addresses your question.

I’m not gonna answer that because that goes beyond the point I was making.

> In that case, what do you do with the life of someone who says they're not suffering?

[bowsamic]

Er ok