Of the sorrow of man.

This is the first paragraph for an essay I am writing.

Every sorrow, as it arises within us, seems to be something particular, something rare, and perhaps wisdom alone is not enough to lead a man to doubt this, however much folly may be in it: if I might be allowed to indulge my Latin taste, my conscience very much accords to the definition which Cornelius Schonaeus gave to sorrow: ac volucrem rerum omnium conditionem mutabilem. “Woe! That all things are disposed to change! Sorrow, you are the wings of the world.” For this woe is generally the lot of mankind. We may divine, however, and without much effort, the pleasure of the rich man, of the lover, of the esteemed poet: they indeed all wear it upon their face. But the sorrows of our fellow men never seem to have such a striking effect upon us. Why is this? Hope more easily forges the bond of human fellowship than sympathy, for it always looks ahead, as is the view to which it is betaken by its very nature, and lends its eye to that happiness in another which we would endeavor to possess for ourselves, not in point of vanity, but as only is right; while sympathy must always look backward, must search deep into us to extract from the heart the little thorn of sorrow, so deeply rooted, which might wed the spirit. Perhaps for all that, it is only pain that has made man presume himself to be a God-- a particular, a measure, and out of defiance against all things, the world just as much as himself, the exception in all of nature.

Hey man this is actually pretty good - though admittedly somewhat hard to follow for me. No bullshit though, you certainly have a talent for writing – I think that perhaps your choice of prose confuses the point of your posts a bit at times (again, this is just my opinion).

As just a general comment, I think there is much truth to this statement:

Pain and sorrow, after all, give us occasion to overcome and thus evolve. That is our chance to prove our authority over ourselves to ourselves.

It isn’t my intention to confuse, but I admit my style is somewhat archaic. I adopt the rhetoric of the writers I read and enjoy, no matter what century they are from, with the hope that the joy of my aesthetic taste can be communicated through writing to the reader.

Even if what you say is lucid and eloquent, what good does it do if nobody listens to it? Don’t people listen to their own translations of what goes through the eardrum into their head? Isn’t it their words they are hearing? Their own translations?

Wouldn’t that depend on what caused the pain? What if you were persecution for something you stand for? Or, what if the sorrow was the result of not being able to be in a permanent state of joy which is an unrealistic goal?

Sometimes the thing to overcome is the thought that there is something more meaningful to do with your life than what your are naturally doing today. But trying to overcome that would only result in keeping it there. By trying to overcome you presuppose something better. So consider your goal. Sometimes its not a matter of questioning reality, but rather questioning your goals, beliefs and assumptions. Maybe its those you should be freed from.

To be honest with you I take perverse delight in my own genius. What is art if not the perverse delight in one’s own genius? I write to be understood, to communicate ideas that torment me and which I must express. But I also write, not as a purely academic exercise, and not even as the selfless communication of a supposed wisdom, but because I am an artist.

Well that is the beauty of his art - those interpretations being processed in the minds of the readers are inspired, and often in ways the reader had not approached before.

He’s not starting a religion (I would hope), he is inspiring thought. That is exactly why it is so important to leave room for interpretation.

Plus, even if nobody listens, the author is creating, expressing, pondering, feeling – if not of benefit to anyone else, the creation of something artistic and real is certainly beneficial to the author.

Nietzsche’s first several books flopped, and he rarely felt that anyone properly understood his art. However, consider the depth of the individual that produced it and the power of his writing today. It doesn’t just take ears to listen, it takes an open mind as well.

You’ve answered your own riddle there my friend. Overcoming pain and sorrow is not always achieved by seeking something better or different, but rather through recognition of what one does have, or the realization that your pain or sorrow will fade with time and effort. Sometimes we even realize that our pain is unnecessary altogether as the “goals” we seek are unrealistic much of the time. Even the realization that pain is a necessary, unavoidable part of life can be a form of ‘overcoming’ I suppose…

What statik said. I would also add that to truly “understand” someone is to reproduce in your own experience the work of thinking or art in question. And not just to reproduce it materially, but in such a way as to expose the life and passion which informs that thinking or art, the spell of joy or misery in which it was composed by the author. You have to reenact it to speak in the language of drama; and as ever actor knows, this means not simply reproducing the event or personage exactly, but reproducing it in such a way as to reveal the actual life in it which a purely historical account or mere photograph could never express.

every actor *

… or accepting, and I go along with that stat.

And this pain, where is it? It does not exist at one or another etheric level — it is here, it is part of the body. Therefore the body has to take the consequences and generally you can not solve the problems. The body has to work them out, and the body can do that in a very intelligent and successful way if you just give it a chance. Your desire to solve your problems at some other level will not be honored. It just remains a hope and nothing else. You can’t let go of that — as far as that is concerned you are really doomed. After all, there is nothing that you can do. But you can’t accept that, because the instrument that you use for that is the thinking, and the thinking can’t accept that because it has always gotten results for you.

You are what you are because of all the things that thinking has produced for you, and that have cost you much time and effort. Therefore, you also assume that every result achieved by means of thinking necessarily requires time. And it is this principle that shifts the whole business away from you and says: ‘this situation is hopeless, we need time’, because time has helped to reach results in all the previous situations.

You can not do anything else except interpret what other men have said. They offered answers for questions during their time frame. They had contemporary value only. Interpreting is unavoidable because that is all you can do by means of thinking. And, you have no other instrument. It is that same instrument that discovered the ‘phenomenon’ of intuition, and ‘understanding intuitively’ and whatsoever other lofty things that you can name and call it art.

So, the only thing that you can do is understand things at the level of thinking. There is no other level of understanding, and in spite of the fact that all our attempts to understand this have generally not helped, there is still the hope that this instrument will be of some use in understanding things, maybe tomorrow, next time, Tuesday, Wednesday, next year, next prolific writer.

thanks finishedman for your humanity, any human is concerned about what you said right

it is crazy to use suffer for god entity, how a negative entity in sorrows can experience what an absolute positive existing free conscious is, even god in religions said it very clearly that suffer are meant punishments and corrections and never gratifications of values and existant sources beings

cmon, hell are meant eternally, if suffer or sorrow make someone a god or better then fires are sources of paradise and not hells eternity

humans suffer of conditions that break their rights of living free, gods are never in conditions and totally of absolute free positive life

and one point that i never heard anyone saying it, the source of any reality is the positive essence energy freedom that is aspiration of being true character living, if this is brought to sorrows you are then killing the source of anything
and that is why god preached even about him undirectly the conscious of essence to return to after all realisations possibilities are done, and offering to humans to break them so he can be the source of what he decided to be always as only state of his as essence not touched of course or broken

breaking minds illusions is being more positively alive, but when you break the living move it is always for another one life, that what justify this order set by god based on killing what another living that you consider inferior to justify being living instead

for god we are all inferiors that dont deserve any quality of living true and that is how he put the condition for eternity life only if conscious accept that fact by living through his life and not them
and even he clearly meant, that he is giving his son to the cross as any vulgar conscious even that is not sinner to him, but he cant live nor exist of his essence it must be only of god to god
and that is wrong because absolute truth is not god and any essence freedom is essentially at a point true then rights

Ascolo, if an artist is someone of skill, then perhaps you fit this bill.

I know you’ll relate to the above condition because of your love of Latin: ars, artis. But ask yourself, what is your skill? To emulate the form/rhythm/flow of writers whom you admire? Whilst to originate from a marked degree of introversion? Thought and writing to yourself would alone cater for the need to relate your artistry to yourself. But you persist in expressing your exhibits extravertedly to others - this is evident in your style amendments that accord to my previous suggestions. You have endeavoured to make yourself clearer/less obscure, you have cut out the saturated untranslated Latin. As such, your communication has improved manifold.

Perhaps what you really seek is to become a musician.

Again, this is a word derived from the Muses who, as you will know, existed to inspire others. This would conspire against a skillful intention to merely relate your thoughts back to yourself. You post yourself often, but finishedman is right when he asks what it nobody listens to it? Simply expressing yourself is a means to an end by itself - whether you publicise it or not, whether you appreciate compliments to your ability to relate to yourself or not. To be a genius is to be one of a ‘type’ (more Latin here). This presupposes connection to others.

The solution, of course, is not to pander to others. How many ‘philosophers’ have fallen at this hurdle? But rather, to express yourself… in a way that you know will relate - to others!

When I feel sorrow, or any immediate emotion, it exists before I realise what it’s for or towards. It exists as something unparticular and not rare.
To your Latin quote: often I feel most sorrow towards the lack of change! Give me something new so that I may feel joy once again!
More in the rich man, lover and poet, I see a forlorn frown. They actually exist in the difference between joy and sorrow, and this distinction is a sorrowful separation, that they only know too well and wear upon their faces.
Sympathy has forever united fellow men more than hope. Hope is dangerous and risky. Shared emotion and sympathy is real and dependable. This backwardsness is shared, the future is not. When the future hope is realised, one feels content to stand alone and to bask in the glory of success by oneself, for this success is felt only, and overwhelmingly selfishly.
It is the pain that occurs after this glory passes, that made man presume himself to be a God, yes, in that he now feels divided from humanity. Now he is alone and no longer content - this is when he re-unites with others via sympathy. Unless he has learnt to feel comfortable and satisfied with himself, in silence.

Your criticism is welcome. This little aphorism was more of a communication of my perspective than an argument. But about my intentions in writing, there are many. For one, I write because I can, and not many other people seem to be able to do it in the strict sense of the word, writing. I don’t write to convince or persuade, but to inspire, that is correct. I also write not out of some entirely vain fascination with myself, a desire to express myself to myself… but because it is only through writing that I can make my own thoughts clear to myself, and resolve them. Thinking and writing are almost the same thing to me, the former leads to the later and the later refers back to the former.

Wow, that is honest.

You probably don’t want to hear this, but this stuff completely alienates me as your reader. It comes over as rank hubris, however you may feel justified in saying it. It’s therefore very difficult for me to suspend my skin-crawling, buttock-clenching, toe-curling loathing and hear your message.

If you’re really keen to be understood, so that your torment is appeased and your art expressed, you might consider the important function of humility in two-way communication. Even geniuses need it.


I have lived in complete solitude, not even leaving my house once, for over eight years now. Every day I experience panic attacks and neuralgia. I have nothing but my thoughts, my writing, and books. I couldn’t give a fuck about you. It takes every ounce of my strength to write one sentence, and I am lucky if I get a paragraph written in a whole day. I have little strength to vindicate my ideas, to engage you in conversation, to explain myself. You can take it or leave it. How is that for honesty?

Like I am going to lose a day’s sleep because the great Coatless doesn’t feel like reading my writings.

Top Class.

However, it’s hard to understand your point. Are you offering your mental illness as an excuse for the style of your writing? Or are you suggesting it somehow refutes my criticism of your hubris? Perhaps you’re saying you don’t care whether you alienate your reader and consequently shoot yourself in your ‘writing to be understood’ foot?

:confused: Does not compute.

(By bizarre coincidence, by the way, it takes every ounce of my strength to read one sentence, and I am lucky if I get a paragraph read in a whole day).