How does it not? Phenomenology is optimism par excellence, the view of reality through the lenses of experience and meaning.
Maybe your own experiences and meanings, those for you personally and what you see around you as you analyze, the depths as you dig deeper and fine the common roots of logical convergences, cross-time expansions and solidifications, all merging into beauty as truth=beauty becomes the equation underwritting all mid-level algorithms… how could one not possible engage in deep eidetic reductions and expansions and NOT come away with a fundamental optimism about life, truth, existence, humanity, past and future, self and other, possibility and actuality, valuation… experience and meaning.
Just imagine it: if life, yours for example, were not already deeply optimistic OF NECSSITY you wouldn’t still be here. Existence is impossible in the negative balance, for very long. It is always topheavy on the truth, the positive array of shining superluminal emergences and convergences of greatnesses beyond reckoning. The soul of man is lucky enough to be approaching enough of that titanic eternal fountainhead that we can be struck with wonder, which is the soul’s very natural language of self-constitution.
If you maintain that viewpoint across your life span, then we can conclude that you are low on the neuroticism scale. Others who view life through different lenses see life differently. What have you proved?
What does whether I have changed have to do with your argument for optimism on the basis of phenomenology? I’ve suggest that your optimism may be due to a personality trait of yours that you project on to the world. Can you prove that it is more than that?
Can you prove to me that the world is anythnig more than our ‘personality traits’? OR that such as they are of ours, are not intimately linked into and as the world itself? But then I already left you so many sweet breadcrumbs and you still skulk around at the surface pretending to be COOL and INDIFFERENT so i mean , you just do you i guess (shrug) and best of luck with all that, “Cool kid”
How did we get here? I asked Magsj what the connection between optimism and phenomenology is. You replied that optimism follows from phenomenology, and is warranted. I suggested that perhaps optimism flows from a personality trait, say perhaps where someone is on the neuroticism scale. There is psychology research supporting that and that’s how I see it at the moment. But, I’m willing to consider other arguments.
I think we are all living out our karma. We are thrown into the world not of our conscious choosing. Our genetic inheritance, our physical and social environment, all are determinative of our being-in-the-world. The freedom of choice we think we have is in the final analysis an illusion. We are ultimately one , so in as much as it is in our power on the phenomenal plane, it makes sense to make peace and serve one another as Jesus taught. And, I think that I even see this much is by the grace of God.
There is a lot of contention rising from a simple exchange of views. It’s a shame.
In Sanskrit, karma literally means “action” and is a concept in various religious and philosophical traditions, but there are differences in how it is understood across these traditions. I investigated a little, and this is two examples of what I found:
I heard a talk on the Hindu perspective, and a young girl in traditional dress said, "It’s really about how we live our lives so that we can really become the best version of ourselves and live the most fulfilling life.”
Jack Kornfield says, Karma is simply the law of cause and effect, and in our lives, this law of cause and effect depends on our intention. To understand, notice how the motivation or intention preceding an action determines the future karmic result of that action. If an act is motivated by true kindness, it will necessarily bring a positive result. If an act is motivated by aggression or greed, over time, it will eventually bring an unpleasant result. But because karmic results do not always bear fruit immediately, it is sometimes difficult to observe this process.
I am deeply influenced by Jack Kornfield’s book A Path With A Heart. I find his focus on intention very important, which aligns with the young lady’s comment above. How do you see karma playing out? I don’t see it as a means to an end, namely a “better” karma, but aimed at a transformation by which we adopt the demeanour of namasté:
“My soul honours your soul. I honour the place in you where the entire universe resides. I honour the light, love, truth, beauty, and peace within you because it also resides within me. In sharing these things, we are united, we are the same, we are one.”
We think we choose what we do. But, if you focus the mind on a single point you can watch the samskaras rise unbidden in your mind borne long by desires which are effects of your karma. I think of them as the residue of past actions including past lives or evolution going back to the beginnings of life on the planet. Now conventional religion teaches that if you do good things God will bless you. But, the book of Job makes a strong counter argument and the crucifixion of Jesus even stronger. The enquiring mind asks what is going on here?
So, samskaras are mental impressions, recollections, or psychological imprints that we often notice arise in meditation, so they are always there. Various schools of Indian philosophy say that every individual’s action, intent, or preparation leaves a samskara (impression, impact, imprint) in the deeper structure of the person’s mind. These impressions await voluntary fruition in that individual’s future through hidden expectations, circumstances or a subconscious sense of self-worth.
By cultivating mindfulness, being fully present and aware of one’s experiences in the present moment, and observing the mind without judgment during meditation, practitioners develop a heightened awareness of their samskaras as they arise. This awareness helps individuals to recognise habitual patterns of thought, emotion, and behaviour. Thereby, we hope to develop good intentions.
Did he ever think that the way he saw and experienced the ‘will’ was through his own eyes, so not applicable to all, of the adamant-ferocity of his own… biological drives, being unique imperatives, unto us all.
His pessimism was unrivalled amongst his Philosophical-peers… apart from that of Aristotle’s, due to his epistemological-view on the inevitable nature of a limited [mortal] and fragile [aging and sick] human existence, which made him pessimistic about the nature and meaning of human life.
.
Reading his insights and exploring diverse philosophical perspectives can perhaps give us valuable understanding, even if it doesn’t align perfectly with our personal outlooks. I always think that maybe there are aspects of Schopenhauer’s work (and others ) that could challenge or enrich my understanding of phenomenology in unexpected ways.
…in what ways, was that?
.
I find pessimism to be the opposite world-view, of that which I believe… so simply being a negation, of it.
…and I’m sure if he was alive today, he would think the same of me and my worldview.
.
Essentially, until I retired, I was fully immersed in nursing and caring for the dying. I tried in the early years of ILP to communicate with others about the nature of existence, because I was experiencing life at one of its extremes, having in the army experienced other extremes. Other people here may be academics who ridicule my attempts to position myself in the world, but in the face of human suffering, you can either face it or try to rund away from it. My experience is that the latter doesn’t work.
¿…isn’t epistemological evidence and phenomenological experience, the perfect cocktail for?
.
.
Hi Felix, nice to see you back on here…
In not deriding the phenomenological/unknown, of one’s-self or others’, it prohibits negatives setting in and optimism from dissipating… or that’s how it seems to work semantically, when I had to think about it concretely.
…but we’re not talking inanities or insanities here, of course.
The nature of existence and human suffering does challenge an optimistic perspective, and Schopenhauer is essentially following the example of Eastern philosophies in his observations, that suffering (dukkha) as physical pain, emotional distress, or mental anguish, including any form of discomfort, pain, or suffering experienced by sentient beings, is real. We see it every day – especially as a nurse – and the question arises whether this is the nature of existence or whether our behaviour causes suffering.
Of course, one aspect is our own state of mind. The inherent instability and fleeting nature of all conditioned phenomena burden us, especially when change, the death of a loved one, or ageing (samsara) alters our outlook and can lead to a sense of dissatisfaction or unease. Dissatisfaction or discontent often arises from the inability to find lasting happiness or fulfilment in worldly pursuits. Even pleasurable experiences are ultimately unsatisfactory because they are impermanent and subject to change.
Although Schopenhauer is often considered one of the most pessimistic philosophers in Western thought, it’s not entirely true that his pessimism was unrivalled among his philosophical peers. Other philosophers have explored themes of suffering, mortality, and the human condition and might be considered equally or even more pessimistic than Schopenhauer’s perspective. Friedrich Nietzsche, for example, had a profoundly critical view of human existence and traditional values, although his philosophy also contains elements of affirmation and overcoming.
Schopenhauer’s pessimism was not solely rooted in his epistemological views but in his broader metaphysical and ethical outlook. The limitations of human knowledge and the primacy of the will informed his overall philosophy, but they were not the sole determinants of his pessimistic stance.
At first glance, Schopenhauer’s philosophy may seem pessimistic and divergent from phenomenological principles, but there are potential points of intersection and dialogue that can lead to deeper insights. For example, he provides valuable insights into the nature of subjectivity and the relationship between subject and object. I find his recognition of the role of embodiment in shaping human experience helpful in the search for meaning, authenticity, and ethical responsibility.
I must stress that in these questions, I follow multiple paths, and Buddhism has been a primary source for me and influential in Schopenhauer’s thinking.
The price we pay for being children of chance, born of a billion bright improbabilities that prevailed over the staggering odds of nothingness and eternal night, is the admission of our total cosmic helplessness. We have various coping mechanisms for it — prayer, violence, routine — and still we are powerless to keep the accidents from happening, the losses from lacerating, the galaxies from drifting apart.
Because our locus of choice is so narrow against the immensity of chance, nothing haunts human life more than the consequences of our choices, nothing pains more than the wistful wish to have chosen more wisely and more courageously — the chance untaken, the love unleapt, the unkind word in the time for tenderness. Regret — the fossilized fangs of should have sunk into the living flesh of is, sharp with sorrow, savage with self-blame — may be the supreme suffering of which we are capable. It poisons the entire system of being, for it feeds on the substance we are made of — time, entropic and irretrievable. It tugs at our yearning for, in James Baldwin’s perfect words, “reconciliation between oneself and all one’s pain and error” and stings with the reminder that eventually “one will oneself become as irrecoverable as all the days that have passed.”
Maria Popova in George Saunders on How to Live an Unregretting Life – The Marginalian
Right, phenomenology can lead to liberation. I’m just not clear what you’re saying about Schopenhauer. He’s a Vedantist. When Schopenhauer analyzes the world as our representation he’s doing phenomenology. He renounces the world. He sees through it and doesn’t believe happiness is to be found in it. He’s basically a sadhu. But, he is optimistic about finding ultimate fulfillment in Brahman, which is why he says that the Upanishads will be his solace in death.
Would that also rule out all theophany of a monotheistic God? Do any eastern traditions besides Judaism not rule out a unique incarnation (or theophany, for that matter)?
If a theophany is defined as a visible manifestation to humankind of God then nature itself is a theophany, the one in the many. God is Being Itself manifest as beings in the world. Now everybody doesn’t see this as it is. According to the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus indicated why when he said, “Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God.” We are too impure to see reality as it is.
