Is it just me or does pessimist philosophy just immediately scream "I don't actually base my understanding in reality?"
Like I understand that the world is pretty depressing right now, but the underlying assumption here is that our actions/beliefs inherently have a particular (bad) output, and yet there doesn't seem to be much analysis of the mechanics of how our actions/beliefs actually manifest as this output, let alone a proof of how this output is the only possible output in all scenarios (or just the most likely one.) Criticism like this relies on the reader to already agree for the outset, which means it doesn't really have much value.
Starting with love, Byung-Chul Han tells us that today we’re in a crisis of love. This crisis is caused by the growth of narcissism and the separation between us and the other. The world is increasingly appearing, not as something ‘other’ to us, but as an innumerable number of reflections of ourselves.
But like... what does any of this actually mean on a mechanical level? These are all buzzwords that don't have any practical meaning.
Why do we today find what is smooth beautiful? Beyond its aesthetic effect, it reflects a general social imperative. It embodies today’s society of positivity. What is smooth does not injure. Nor does it offer any resistance. It is looking for Like. The smooth object deletes it’s Against. Any form of negativity is removed.
What mechanism proves that the abstract concept of "positivity" is the problem here rather than, say, political propaganda from a dominant power structure that uses a ton of energy/effort reinforcing these particular beliefs?
But like... what does any of this actually mean on a mechanical level? These are all buzzwords that don't have any practical meaning.
That's the problem with trying to address philosophy without doing the work to understand what the philosopher is responding to. This work will take years. These "buzzwords" have meaning to those who do.
I understood it fine. It took a long time to amass the requisite familiarity with a broad spectrum of thinkers and a lot of manual effort to parse and make sense of how they use specific words and turn of phrase to refer to specific things; and not often in a way that is compatible with others' way of speaking.
In short, philosophy by its nature requires a sort of jargon that is similar to technical (i.e. programming) jargon; without that understanding, you will be getting a limited layer of data; references without referents.
These lectures, https://rickroderick.org/, are likely to help you better understand what this supposed philosopher builds on, though I suspect they, unlike Roderick, is a charlatan.
Is it just me or does pessimist philosophy just immediately scream "I don't actually base my understanding in reality?"
It's just you, for two reasons. One is that Byung-Chul Han isn't, and as far as I know does not consider himself, a pessimist philosopher. He's a cultural critic, media theorist and mostly known for being a critic of neoliberalism.
As far as actual pessimist philosophers, like say Schopenhauer go, they generally did not base their outlook on "the world is pretty depressing right now" but usually on more fundamental metaphysical grounds
Well this is why I feel pretty confident in my analysis then because I’m much more knowledgeable about criticism than I am about philosophy and all my alarm bells are going off here. When I’m reading that blurb about how Koons art affects culture I’m sitting here shaking my head knowing that, while it’s entirely plausible that Koons affected the world that way, this statement is still only scratching the surface on Koons, the art world, and the history of his impact on the art world
How much of pessimist philosophy have you actually read? Have you gone back to the German 1800s philosophers? Do you only know Schopenhauer and Mainlander? What about Schelling, Horstmann, Bahnsen, von Hartmann, Zapffe, Cioran? Or to a less pessimist extent but for some reason listed on wiki, Gautama Buddha, or existentialists like Kierkegaard, Camus and Sartre? LOL they have Nietzsche listed as a pessimist. As if.
A solid overview is the book Welzschmerz: Pessimism in German Philosophy
I've been reading Zapffe a bit off and on recently which feels the most "accessible" out of the bit I've seen (I've read some Mainlander (but all the translations are very difficult and dense; I think the one I bought on Amazon is actually not as good as the one you can find on reddit, which feels more appropriately philosophically minded, or maybe the heaviness/specificity of the transliteration makes me dig/read harder than the more fluent prose of the one English version on Amazon, published the past couple years). Thacker feels a bit too light to me, but seems to be more a 'popularizer' but also abstract I wouldn't necessarily recommend him.
Ligotti's book on the topic (The Conspiracy Against the Human Race) is bleak but very well written and accessible, it's where I got the start to read more and delve into it as a philosophy.
Personally I don't find Byung-Chul Han that compelling, and maybe it's the translations. I admit I only found a sample chapter, and maybe it just dropped me in the middle where I had no context, but it felt very, as you imply, flowery and abstract.
There's a variety of pessimist writers, and I wouldn't lump them all in with this particular writer, just because you find his work empty.
There's also Anti-Natalist authors who contribute to the pessimist orientation, though I'm not listing them here as I'm not as familiar with their work, but they also have a bit of an older lineage despite it seeming like a newer orientation.
Anyways, if you seriously mean these questions and want to know, asking in a tech forum is probably not the best place, but it can point you to some good starting points, which I hope I have done.
I, personally, am pessimist to my bone, from experience. That doesn't mean people who aren't are invalid. They have a different outlook due to their experiences, and whatever constitutions they have. But I will say reading about pessimism from the heavier thinkers has allowed me to put my finger on things (even if I can't put my tongue to explain the details) in a way that I hadn't seen before, and helped me understand my own interior making.
I wasn't always like this, I was a hopeful, youthful libertarian then socialist, and while hopeful, still, I don't retain it as a likely outcome. Some people are cosmic pessimists, some are more immediate pessimists, some only see it as a personal emotive choice (that's less philosophy than state of mind) but others do see an overarching bleakness in life, despite the beauty all around. Some may even find comfort in pessimism, in known that "one day too, this(they) shall pass".
Admittedly, I wrote this comment only thinking about modern pessimism cause it feels like it's become so commodified that it's just a parody of itself at this point. If we're gonna start talking about the classics, then I can't badmouth anyone. No doubt they're important reads and, whether I agree with them or not, they're canonized as part of the history of thought, which IMO is more important than "truth"
Comments
Is it just me or does pessimist philosophy just immediately scream "I don't actually base my understanding in reality?"
Like I understand that the world is pretty depressing right now, but the underlying assumption here is that our actions/beliefs inherently have a particular (bad) output, and yet there doesn't seem to be much analysis of the mechanics of how our actions/beliefs actually manifest as this output, let alone a proof of how this output is the only possible output in all scenarios (or just the most likely one.) Criticism like this relies on the reader to already agree for the outset, which means it doesn't really have much value.
But like... what does any of this actually mean on a mechanical level? These are all buzzwords that don't have any practical meaning.
What mechanism proves that the abstract concept of "positivity" is the problem here rather than, say, political propaganda from a dominant power structure that uses a ton of energy/effort reinforcing these particular beliefs?
I just don't find this stuff meaningful
That's the problem with trying to address philosophy without doing the work to understand what the philosopher is responding to. This work will take years. These "buzzwords" have meaning to those who do.
I’m familiar enough with the history of philosophy to know that this article, at least, is gobbledygook marketing. Maybe the philosopher isn’t.
I understood it fine. It took a long time to amass the requisite familiarity with a broad spectrum of thinkers and a lot of manual effort to parse and make sense of how they use specific words and turn of phrase to refer to specific things; and not often in a way that is compatible with others' way of speaking.
In short, philosophy by its nature requires a sort of jargon that is similar to technical (i.e. programming) jargon; without that understanding, you will be getting a limited layer of data; references without referents.
These lectures, https://rickroderick.org/, are likely to help you better understand what this supposed philosopher builds on, though I suspect they, unlike Roderick, is a charlatan.
Oh thank you, I'd never heard of Rick Roderick, he looks brilliant. Always thrilled to hear different accents in and around academia, too!
This site is great though. I’ll definitely watch through these. Thanks
RR is awesome, totally agree-
It's just you, for two reasons. One is that Byung-Chul Han isn't, and as far as I know does not consider himself, a pessimist philosopher. He's a cultural critic, media theorist and mostly known for being a critic of neoliberalism.
As far as actual pessimist philosophers, like say Schopenhauer go, they generally did not base their outlook on "the world is pretty depressing right now" but usually on more fundamental metaphysical grounds
Well this is why I feel pretty confident in my analysis then because I’m much more knowledgeable about criticism than I am about philosophy and all my alarm bells are going off here. When I’m reading that blurb about how Koons art affects culture I’m sitting here shaking my head knowing that, while it’s entirely plausible that Koons affected the world that way, this statement is still only scratching the surface on Koons, the art world, and the history of his impact on the art world
How much of pessimist philosophy have you actually read? Have you gone back to the German 1800s philosophers? Do you only know Schopenhauer and Mainlander? What about Schelling, Horstmann, Bahnsen, von Hartmann, Zapffe, Cioran? Or to a less pessimist extent but for some reason listed on wiki, Gautama Buddha, or existentialists like Kierkegaard, Camus and Sartre? LOL they have Nietzsche listed as a pessimist. As if.
A solid overview is the book Welzschmerz: Pessimism in German Philosophy
https://archive.org/details/frederick-c.-beiser-weltschmerz-...
I've been reading Zapffe a bit off and on recently which feels the most "accessible" out of the bit I've seen (I've read some Mainlander (but all the translations are very difficult and dense; I think the one I bought on Amazon is actually not as good as the one you can find on reddit, which feels more appropriately philosophically minded, or maybe the heaviness/specificity of the transliteration makes me dig/read harder than the more fluent prose of the one English version on Amazon, published the past couple years). Thacker feels a bit too light to me, but seems to be more a 'popularizer' but also abstract I wouldn't necessarily recommend him.
Ligotti's book on the topic (The Conspiracy Against the Human Race) is bleak but very well written and accessible, it's where I got the start to read more and delve into it as a philosophy.
Personally I don't find Byung-Chul Han that compelling, and maybe it's the translations. I admit I only found a sample chapter, and maybe it just dropped me in the middle where I had no context, but it felt very, as you imply, flowery and abstract.
There's a variety of pessimist writers, and I wouldn't lump them all in with this particular writer, just because you find his work empty.
There's also Anti-Natalist authors who contribute to the pessimist orientation, though I'm not listing them here as I'm not as familiar with their work, but they also have a bit of an older lineage despite it seeming like a newer orientation.
Anyways, if you seriously mean these questions and want to know, asking in a tech forum is probably not the best place, but it can point you to some good starting points, which I hope I have done.
I, personally, am pessimist to my bone, from experience. That doesn't mean people who aren't are invalid. They have a different outlook due to their experiences, and whatever constitutions they have. But I will say reading about pessimism from the heavier thinkers has allowed me to put my finger on things (even if I can't put my tongue to explain the details) in a way that I hadn't seen before, and helped me understand my own interior making.
I wasn't always like this, I was a hopeful, youthful libertarian then socialist, and while hopeful, still, I don't retain it as a likely outcome. Some people are cosmic pessimists, some are more immediate pessimists, some only see it as a personal emotive choice (that's less philosophy than state of mind) but others do see an overarching bleakness in life, despite the beauty all around. Some may even find comfort in pessimism, in known that "one day too, this(they) shall pass".
Admittedly, I wrote this comment only thinking about modern pessimism cause it feels like it's become so commodified that it's just a parody of itself at this point. If we're gonna start talking about the classics, then I can't badmouth anyone. No doubt they're important reads and, whether I agree with them or not, they're canonized as part of the history of thought, which IMO is more important than "truth"