For strong skeptical confrontations of knowledge, it's not a question of whether we can be certain but of whether we can actually be justified in stating that many of our core beliefs are true. Either we run into infinite regress or into things for which we don't have a solid basis for stating truthfulness for, such as that our senses are a reasonable basis for knowledge or that our memories have a degree of reliability. Moving from a position of knowledge to a position of reasonability allows for forms of justification that are rooted neither in truth nor in cohesion, which is what I'm trying to present in this paper. (Admittedly, I may not be doing a very good job in doing so!)

Beyond that, we can believe anything is knowledge, regardless of whether it actually is. I can believe I possess knowledge even if my premises are not knowledge, but at least for externalist conceptions of knowledge like JTB this is not generally considered to constitute "knowledge" in the philosophical sense.

I'd always considered the definition of optimism and pessimism to see things either more positively or more negatively. I don't think how you feel about things is part of the definition. I'd also argue that the more negative take is almost always closer to reality than the positive take.

I find that having a lower expectation approach to life has been better for my happiness. Less disappointed when things don't go ideally, more pleased when they actually do. Meanwhile most people I know who are more optimistic and expect more, ironically end up being more disappointed.

"From a man’s perspective, women are capricious, and can be a source of joy as much as of anguish. “Luck, be a gentleman tonight” has always felt wrong to men, and therefore must be the wrong analogy."

This is a big thought-step and also a huge assumption on the author's part, which makes me want to toss the rest aside, too.

In light of the philosophical discourse surrounding Schopenhauer's pessimism, it behooves us to contemplate the potential merits of adopting an optimistic perspective. Acknowledging the veracity of Schopenhauer's arguments does not preclude us from considering alternative, more sanguine outlooks on life.

First and foremost, one must take into account the undeniable progress humanity has achieved over the course of history. Through a myriad of advancements in technology, medicine, and overall living standards, we are presented with compelling evidence that progress is not merely a chimera.

Furthermore, the human propensity for resilience and adaptability in the face of adversity cannot be understated. The annals of history are replete with instances of cultures and societies surmounting seemingly insurmountable obstacles and emerging stronger as a result.

The capacity for collective learning is another noteworthy aspect of the human experience. Through the transmission and accumulation of knowledge across generations, we have witnessed astonishing achievements in diverse fields such as science, art, and technology. This continual process of intellectual advancement stands as a testament to humanity's potential for growth.

Moreover, the human capacity for altruism, empathy, and compassion serves as a beacon of hope amidst the darkness of adversity. These innate qualities foster collaboration and inspire individuals and communities to strive for positive change, even under the most daunting of circumstances.

The potential for personal growth and self-improvement, as exhibited by countless individuals, should not be neglected in this discussion. The capacity for transformation and development on a personal level can provide solace and engender optimism for the future.

Additionally, empirical research has demonstrated the tangible benefits of embracing a positive mindset. Optimistic individuals are more likely to take proactive measures and seek solutions, whilst concurrently experiencing reduced levels of stress and anxiety.

Lastly, it is crucial to recognize the moral progress humanity has made in addressing social injustices, promoting human rights, and fostering equality. This trajectory of amelioration offers a glimmer of hope for continued improvement.

In conclusion, it is incumbent upon us, as seekers of philosophical truth, to entertain the prospect of an optimistic outlook on life, whilst duly acknowledging the validity of pessimistic perspectives. By appreciating human resilience, adaptability, and the potential for positive change, we are better equipped to navigate the vicissitudes of existence and strive for a more promising future.

I love art (the arts) and think that if we only want "morally acceptable artists" we will be in a lot of trouble, especially if these are people from other times and we try to apply a 2023 moral judgement to them.

If we go by moral judgement then we are not looking for works of art, but rather for people that fit into a mold we create, a problematic mold because it changes by the hour and what today is acceptable maybe in a few months won't.

I think you might be in denial a little bit. Optimism is about overcoming those negative feelings. Pessimism is about falling to those negative feelings. And perpetuating them. An optimist has those negative feelings and addresses them in a healthy way. A pessimist refuses to let go of them.

But I don't mean to be disrespectful or to disregard what you said. Because I think it's an interesting perspective

Both don't have to be correct though. It seems like you're trying to have your cake and eat it too.

A more recent book worth checking out regarding modern pessimism is Szymczyk's Atlantis & Its Fate In The Postdiluvian World, slightly philosophical and extremely pessimistic at times, bordering on science-fiction at others, but overall a highly entertaining read with some interesting comparisons of Kodiak Island around 10,000 BC with descriptions of Atlantis in Plato's Timaeus and Critias. He also mentions Schopenhauer quite a few times, which is why I'm mentioning it (disclaimer: I know the author and have been championing this book so I might be a bit biased, however, the book is free on Kindle right now so this is not a commercial endorsement).

Yep, unlikable even to yourself. A lot of people were raised wrong or misguided and don't realize that they are able to like themselves. Or they feel blocked from admitting that point. So they refuse to get help when people offer it. Like, for instance, someone with depression is told that they have to snap out of it. And then you'll see people saying that it's terrible advice and it's not helpful. But that's the only solution. Snap out of it.

Yep. This subreddit is very negative. It's a lot of nihilists and pessimists who refuse to acknowledge that a tree is always growing. And I do despise them for that. Although I am working on letting go of blame. Because it just makes life easier if you don't blame people.

I wasn't trying to redeem this fruitless article.

It's just that I wanted to avoid another kind of debacle too.

Scopnehauer was apparently heavily influenced by his reading of the Upanishads, which are some of the key Hindu philosophical texts. What I am not sure is the quality of the translations that he read since we do know he did not read them in the original Sanskrit.

Yeps...it's a very good read!

Arthur Schopenhauer shows in his texts an influence from Hinduism as it was translated into Europe (as limited as those translations were).

If you're interested in reading more modern Pessimists I would suggest Conspiracy Against the Human Race by Thomas Ligotti and just about any fiction or non fiction by Gary J Shipley.

I wonder about non western influence on Shopenhauer. His 'resignation' and appreciation concepts sound as if they were lifted from a meditation lecture.

Sam Harris' moral philosophy, particularly his merging of "is" and "ought," is irritatingly ignorant of advances in philosophy. Just as Sam takes care to differentiate between science and pseudoscience, I make the distinction between philosophy and pseudo-philosophy. The separation of "is" (descriptive) and "ought" (prescriptive) has been a widely accepted philosophical tenet since the 17th century, endorsed by British empiricists, including the eminent Hume. Hume's distinction posits that we cannot directly derive prescriptive, normative conclusions (what "ought" to be) from descriptive statements about the world (what "is"). This principle has been acknowledged by philosophers ever since. Yet, Sam Harris, a scientist with a modest background in philosophy, posits the contrary without offering an explanation. He asserts that morality can be determined based on the well-being of neurological systems.

Okay, I'll bite. Why put "views" into scare quotes? If views is not the correct term, put your cards on the table... how should J. K. Rowling's thought processes be characterized or described?

We agree that most speech should not be punishable by the state.

But I think it's reasonable, if not obvious, that all actions will have reactions - or in this case consequences.

Some of those consequences are good! Some of them are bad! If you say something unpopular, people respond by showing displeasure. This is natural and normal, and also changes based upon where and when you find yourself.

Indeed, many consequences for Rowling's views have been positive! Many groups have heaped praise on her and supported her both culturally and commercially.

However, she has also faced many negative consequences. None of them have risen to the level of life destruction (despite what Rowling would at times want you to believe).

Now, do I believe that someone is allowed to "do as she pleases" if they don't cross a blurry line that takes it to the level of a crime?

Let's try to see some real world examples:

I work in restaurants. It's not illegal for people to be rude to servers and bartenders. It's not illegal for a customer to argue with every person at the bar whenever they speak.

However, they do not have the right to "continue doing as they please" at the expense of the restaurant as a whole. We are well within our rights to deny them service. In fact, all the other people should have the right to do as they please without him being annoying the whole time.

Did I destroy this person's life? Or did they face the consequences of actions they could have stopped at any time?

Certainly they have the right, and probably the inclination, to continue being horrible to every establishment they step foot in. But it would be a far cry to say they were victimized by a biased restaurant industry.

I do not believe that a person should face no consequences for denigrating people in a public forum. I also firmly believe that if a person in a position of influence demonstrates clear prejudice it is permissible for society to determine, on their own, whether or not they want to accept that prejudice to have the opportunity to influence that position (to use your case of doctors or lawyers that behave poorly - racist doctors and lawyers have a clear opportunity to use their position to do real harm, even if they never commit a crime).

It feels like you and I have a bit of a gulf between us and I'm not sure we'd be able to do much more than say "x is impermissible but y and z would be so long as we consider a, b, and c." But I appreciate the thoughtful discussion and responses.

No one is capable or interested in saving the world.

There's no doubt that over time, the human condition has been and is improving.

Humans, on the other hand, are just as awful as they have ever been.

I think a healthy way of being pessimistic is just to have more tempered expectations of things. Someone more optimistic is more prone to disappointment and upset because they have a higher bar in what they expect.

Elvis had a TV special the same week R Kelly was charged or sentenced.

Please keep in mind our first commenting rule:

> Read the Post Before You Reply

> Read/listen/watch the posted content, understand and identify the philosophical arguments given, and respond to these substantively. If you have unrelated thoughts or don't wish to read the content, please post your own thread or simply refrain from commenting. Comments which are clearly not in direct response to the posted content may be removed.

This subreddit is not in the business of one-liners, tangential anecdotes, or dank memes. Expect comment threads that break our rules to be removed. Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban.

This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.

Safranksi's bio on Schopenhauer is worth a read too imo.