Is anyone else here a philosophical pessimist? Ill post my view of the world.

[Ligottian]

I remember when I stumbled across Schopenhauer in my university library decades ago, What a revelation! Here was a man who (more or less) "got it".

 

[IrisGr3y_]

This post. . . it describes almost 1:1 what I had been circling on my mind these past two years, why I've become an unwilling shell of a person, and this huge sense of pointlessness. . .

Thank you.

 

[Mr.Tristesse]

I remember when I stumbled across Schopenhauer in my university library decades ago, What a revelation! Here was a man who (more or less) "got it".

Yet he lived a long time actively enjoying things he liked. Just like Benatar he was in no rush to die.

 

[loggingin]

The 550-million-year stack trace of predation you've provided is an accurate mapping of biological legacy debt. However, your synthesis appears incomplete due to a salience bias toward acute metabolic states (pain/pleasure).

You frame existence as a "throne of blood," yet 80-90% of a sentient organism's runtime is occupied by the in-between: the neutral, non-narrative state of homeostatic maintenance. Your model over-funds the "suffering" vector while treating the vast, silent baseline of "just being" as a null value.

Why is your attention mechanism exclusively weighted toward the 10% peak-stress intervals? If "narrative is dead," then the "Nightmare Narrative" you've constructed is just as much of a symbolic override as the utopia you reject. You are currently wireheading your own default mode network to maximize a specific pessimistic signal, effectively simulating the very "insatiable desire engine" you claim to despise.

Is it possible that your epistemically final worldview is simply a local minimum—a basin where the cost of maintaining the despair-narrative has become your primary biological output? What happens to your logic if you calibrate for the neutral state instead of the peaks?

is it really "in between" if most animals are infected/infested with parasites and are living in fear of being eaten alive (imagine living knowing that you are being hunted by the cartel and they are threatening to skin you alive, can you really secure much comfortable neutral in between moments? animals live under a similar violent condition of knowing that they are constantly under threat of being eaten alive, stress hormones constantly high as well)

life is meaningless because you cant choose your desires, how you feel, both mentally and physically are just products of evolution.
hypothetically speaking if you can live forever, none of your feelings of love will stand the test of time, which means there is nothing transcendent about love. and knowing that, is the net pain of existence justified for superficial and materialistic play? i dont think so.

if i was a billionaire and i saved millions of people from starvation, it doesnt justify me raping a few handfuls of minors at my own will, and in that same sense, the pleasures and neutrals of the net experience of existence doesnt justify the net pain even if its 90% to 10%. thats why i acknowledge existence would be better to have never been, and needs dont need to exist, needs are also a pain because its biologically induced into you to act in a sense that generally makes you reproductively succesful . if you are sedentary and sit there doing mostly nothing youll go insane, and from there a chain of desires to seek stimulation are instilled into you against your own will