Three principles:
1. Humans are driven by the evolutionary force to survive.
2. Suffering is the trade-off for no boredom and doing work that helps with survival.
3. The world humans perceive is incomplete: it’s a subjective viewpoint with lots of holes.
An atheistic philosophy that emphasizes that the phenomenal world is merely a representation of this underlying Will, and to overcome suffering and pain.
I support most of the ideas that the past of the buried or cremated corpse of Arthur Schopenhauer that have been transcribed down on mediums with a pen or other writing material, told through the larynx, along with the simultaneous presence of at least one active listener, or believed himself and was found out and spread by other humans through other miscellaneous methods or observations.
-Most people actually aren't that rational, prioritizing social+emotions (and maybe authority figures) over REAL logic. Persuasion is hardly going to work, as most people are unreasonable, meaning reason cannot change them at all.
-Simplifying my language to be shorter (maybe) often leads to the removal of the full picture and logic, which I feel like is bad.
-Most people simply don't like long sentences of rational reasoning... etc. I also need time to think. That's also why in reality I don't chit-chat that much, just the essentials.
-I cannot change this, but I can accept it as the situation of mankind.
-Thus, I accept that most people are simply too wasteful to spend my thinking capabilities on.
-I will thus live a life where few understand me as most people simply cannot think critically.
-Stop expecting what is not the case.
-That's also why I have very few friends. Just co-existing with the cohorts, but not actually liking them, just existing with them.
-Intelligence should be reserved and not spent on dealing with obnoxious and "crazy loud" people.
Shockingly, for a man of this kind, he rejected it.
The suicider doesn't want to not be; they want to not suffer. But it affirms that they want something factually near-impossible: make it what it is, not what factually happens to them, not meeting their “standards”.
Pragmatically, you should lower your “standards” to zero.
Suicide is an act of passion, and passion is the purest expression of the Will. Therefore, suicide is a surrender to have the Will somehow exceed the biological desire to survive, and as most doubt their action several tens or hundreds of times if they do it, if at all, it just affirms the strength of the biological will to survive, which, for a person trying to prove how futile life is, is a completely counterintuitive act. I will continue to exist as a matter of fact, but I will refuse to give the Will the satisfaction of my passion for death. I will be the Natural and Neutral Observer of my own biological shenanigans until the machine naturally runs out of fuel.
Proof of biological will to live: The clash between the societal will to live and the biological will to live. Then why won’t babies do a suicide even when they know literally zero language? They cry all the time, their needs not being properly met, and they lack many basic human functions, like walking. It must be quite a bad life currently, you know. Thus, the biological will to live takes the clash.
I am a walking corpse-to-be (a temporary arrangement of carbon and oxygen that will eventually cease function), yet I am currently still in the state of existence as of the time of writing this, and can be presumed to be continuing to subside in that condition if I exert a physical reflex or show brain activity to miscellaneous types of stimulus (like the firing of synapses), and have limited yet biologically and psychologically adequate freedom of will, and within that limit I may or may not respond or care about what I hear to protect that will.
He’s pragmatically possible. Though he is often called a pessimist, he is more so a realist and truth-finder, I would say. I think it explains (though technically fails) why humans continue to live even when there is lots of trouble. And it also tries to make people look at the world as objectively as possible, instead of falling into the belief that everything happens for a reason (even a volcano death)
I support most of the ideas that the past of the buried or cremated corpse of Arthur Schopenhauer that have been transcribed down on mediums with a pen or other writing material, told through the larynx along with the simultaneous presence of at least one active listener, or believed himself and was found out and spread by other humans through other miscellaneous methods or observations.
Though both might reflect the negative state of mankind, Schopenhauer is much more pragmatic than Mach - I don't have power to use Mach tactics and realized that teachers may not have a choice in a school system like this. Perhaps life really was all negative all along from the fact that we constantly have to escape the default state and do undesirible things, like a job, just to get money to survive and prolong suffering longer.