Jump to content

Talk:Philosophical pessimism

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

List of things to add

[edit]

I'm starting a list of things that would be great to add. Please expand as you see appropriate. It may help us coordinate and see what could still be improved. "[x] Item" means that the item is done. Discussions regarding individual items, if necessary, can be started in individual sections or immediately underneath each point. Whatever suits us best.

TODO list

[edit]

Done

[edit]

Low importance items, maybies

[edit]

Comments on the list

[edit]

I suggest adding Thomas Ligotti to this list! Delukiel (talk) 06:42, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Of course! By all means. Please edit the above list and add an additional points, as you see fit. This is not "my" list. This is our list. Fantastiera (talk) 08:45, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good day, Fantastiera. I would like to share my opinion regarding two of the suggestions you mentioned above. For the first suggestion, namely, "Add a section regarding Philosophical pessimism#Procreation, briefly mention Antinatalism, while refering to the target article", I believe that philosophical pessimism naturally intersects quite significantly with antinatalism, to the point that the creation of a new section specifically for procreation/antinatalism seems to me redundant/unnecessary, which can be noted in the fact that antinatalism is already mentioned and/or linked in many different parts of this article (more specifically, in the second introductory paragraph of the article, in the recent section on Ecclesiastes, in the Middle Ages section, in Cioran's section, and in Benatar's section). And for the second suggestion, that is, "Add something about Dialogue of Pessimism" (which was previously marked as done), I have decided to remove, as explained in the revision history of the article, the section on the Dialogue of Pessimism and replaced it instead with a section on the Book of Ecclesiastes (also considered to be a piece of wisdom literature), due to finding it more relevant and persuasive regarding philosophical pessimism. Maybe someone could find it pertinent to add the Dialogue of Pessimism for purely historical reasons, but I would still insist on the text of Ecclesiastes being more clear and compelling in its pessimistic perspective towards life. Kind regards. Sirhu (talk) 23:58, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Overdue update: I ultimately decided to add the Dialogue of Pessimism once again, but in connection with the section on the Book of Ecclesiastes Sirhu (talk) 17:24, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You may be right about that, Sirhu. The reason why I wanted to introduce a dedicated section on antinatalism was that it's usually better to split an article into thematically cohesive sections, rather than having an idea be spread thin across hundreds of words. Similarly to the Philosophical pessimism#Regarding non-human animals section. Fantastiera (talk) 18:19, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Now that I thought a bit more about it, it definitely seems like a viable option to create a separate section for antinatalism. I understand philosophical pessimism to be (and I suspect you would agree) an overall diagnosis about human life and, often, the life of other sentient beings as well, while antinatalism (humancentric or sentiocentric) appears as a possible response to this diagnosis.

In this sense, I think we could add a section about antinatalism as a subheading to the "philosophical responses to the human condition" section. If we do so, we may or may not need to alter/remove some mentions of antinatalism in other parts of the article in order to avoid repetition. Sirhu (talk) 20:41, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A road to make Philosophical pessimism one of the Wikipedia:Good_articles

[edit]

Currently, this is still a relatively new article. So it's no wonder that the quality is mixed, not the greatest. Aiming at making this article be one of the Wikipedia:Good_articles will help us improve the content and readability to a great degree.

Wikipedia has a general list of Wikipedia:Good article criteria and Wikipedia:Good article nominations/Instructions we can follow. It is very helpful to look at some of the pages that already are of very high quality — the list can be checked out at Wikipedia:Good articles/Philosophy and religion. Fantastiera (talk) 18:04, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Stage 1: Change the historical account to a topic account

[edit]

Stage 2: Improve the citations

[edit]

The very first things, and maybe the easiest to do, are improvements to citations and references.

  • [x] Provide page numbers to references/citations
  • [x] Provide more citations to secondary literature (books and articles about philosophical pessimism, not books written by philosophical pessimists per se) Fantastiera (talk) 18:06, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Arguments to add

[edit]

A list of arguments to add to Philosophical pessimism#Main arguments:

Fantastiera (talk) 15:07, 7 October 2023 (UTC) Fantastiera (talk) 11:15, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is also a thread on pessimistic arguments on Reddit that may be useful: Good arguments for pessimism? Fantastiera (talk) 16:53, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done: a list of already added arguments

[edit]
  • [x] Life is structurally negative, by Julio Cabrera
  • [x] Cabrera's moral impediment thesis - the impossibility to live a moral life
  • [x] "a life is worth living only if it does not contain any uncompensated evils; but since all our lives happen to contain such evils, none of them are worth living." // Simmons (2020)
  • [x] Schopenhauer's A Priori Argument for Pessimism // Hassan (2021)
  • [x] Arguments for low (or no) positive value of pleasure/joy // Schopenhauer's WWR, Fox (2022)
  • [x] Negative view on pleasures; pleasures as mere reliefs from pain // Schopenhauer WWR, Plato's Republic (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J2EwhxjdniY), Knutsson (2022), Knutsson (2023), Sherman (2017), Vinding (2022)
  • [x] Expand the Buddhist argument to include all Three marks of existence, since they constitute the negative view on life from the Buddhist perspective
  • [x] Everything decays, everything will be lost // Mainländer, Cabrera (2019), Drew Dalton (2023, pp. 275-285), Buddhist Impermanence
  • [x] Valuelessness of just existing - both Schopenhauer and Cabrera argue that just existing has no value and we realize it when not doing anything (we get profoundly bored, we do not get any pleasure in the experience of merely existing) // Cabrera (2019)

Fantastiera (talk) 17:56, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • [x] Argument(s) from the meaninglessness of life // Fremstedal (2013), Benatar (2017)
  • [x] Quality of life argument from Better Never to Have Been

Notes

[edit]

[M]ost of the so-called pleasures that reach the soul through the body, as well as the most intense ones are (...) some kind of relief from pain. (...) Is it any surprise (...) [that when those who are inexperienced in the truth] ascend from the painful to the intermediate state, they firmly believe that they have reached fulfillment and pleasure?

— Plato, Republic (translation by G. M. A. Grube) Fantastiera (talk) 20:30, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A list of arguments that don't fit the page

[edit]

This is a list of arguments that are somehow related but do not exactly fit philosophical pessimism. Left here for reference.

Nothing here for the moment. Fantastiera (talk) 19:04, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

[edit]

Two comments:

1. In my view, Cabrera's moral impediment thesis does fit the page. There are already many hedonic-related arguments about the lack of value of life, but Cabrera's idea of moral impediment adds a novel argument for pessimism: namely, that life has a negative value not only because its very structure causes one to suffer, but because, according to such author, that very same structure is also responsible for one causing others to suffer - regardless of one having "good" or "bad" moral intentions (see pp. 58-59 of Discomfort and Moral Impediment: The Human Situation, Radical Bioethics and Procreation, and also p. 151: "...human life is bad because structurally it is besieged by discomfort in the threefold modality of pain, discouragement and moral impediment").

2. Regarding: "[ ] Arguments for low (or no) positive value of pleasure/joy // Schopenhauer's WWR, Fox (2022)" and "[ ] Negative view on pleas[ure]. Pleasures as mere reliefs from pain // Schopenhauer WWR, Plato's Republic (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J2EwhxjdniY), Knutsson (2022), Knutsson (2023), Sherman (2017), Vinding (2022)": the Schopenhauerian argument regarding the negative value of pleasures is already addressed in the "Suffering is essential to life because of perpetual striving" section: [happiness] is only a negative experience as it temporarily takes away a striving or need", so adding more text about it would seem superfluous to me. The negative nature of pleasures is also mentioned in the "Life contains uncompensated evils" section: "If the good is merely taking away an evil, then it cannot compensate for the bad since it's not of the appropriate kind — it's not a positive thing that could "repay the debt" of the bad."

Although Schopenhauer is unanimously considered to be the most important figure in the history of philosophical pessimism, it would still be excessive, in my view, to add more than two different segments about him in the "main arguments" section. However, if we do opt for adding three or more arguments from him, it would be more appropriate, in my view, to have only one section dedicated to all of his arguments.

What do you think? Sirhu (talk) 09:52, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Cabrera's argument: Yes, it makes makes. I updated the page. Thanks for that, User:Sirhu.
Regarding the comment about the negative view on pleasure, I added some arguments to the page. Please check them out. Schopenhauer is mentioned only briefly. I believe it's fine if he's repeated since a very particular thesis is being brought up. Additionally, other post-Schopenhauerian philosophers got a mention. This argument is different that the one in the uncompensated evils and the perpetual striving sections. I recognize that a portion is being repeated, but the focus is different. What do you think?
I would prefer to keep the argument ordered by topic/point, rather than by who makes them, unless they are very related. For example, there are related means of dealing with suffering by Schopenhauer (Philosophical pessimism#Schopenhauer's renunciation of the will to life), and there it makes sense to bunch them together. I don't see a clean way of doing something similar in Philosophical_pessimism#Main arguments. Fantastiera (talk) 19:04, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum: I think keeping the arguments not ordered by a philosopher, but listed exactly as now - as arguments, is beneficial, since sometimes there will be more than one person who makes a particular argument, or contributes to it. Maybe it's not very clear now (although we already have scholars contributing to understanding of Schopenhauer's a priori argument from striving, for example), but it should be getting clearer as we'll be adding more arguments (e.g. from the meaninglessness of life or from the mundaneness of daily activities or from boredom) and refining the arguments we have already. We'll see that often philosophers are making essentially the same point, but arriving at it from different angles or expressing it differently. Lastly, I think it would make sense to have History of philosophical pessimism to be ordered entirely by philosophers, while Philosophical pessimism to be strictly topic driven. Fantastiera (talk) 23:59, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"We'll see that often philosophers are making essentially the same point, but arriving at it from different angles or expressing it differently. Lastly, I think it would make sense to have History of philosophical pessimism to be ordered entirely by philosophers, while Philosophical pessimism to be strictly topic driven."
Yes - I am in full agreement with you. :) Sirhu (talk) 14:08, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Things to add to Pessimism and other philosophical topics

[edit]

Things to add to Responses to the bad in life

[edit]

The new section will probably need a better title. The section will be an overview of how pessimists (and adjacent thinkers) suggest we deal with the badness of life.

Done

[edit]

Completed - Closed - Done

[edit]

A proposal for an overhaul of the article

[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of this discussion was to perform the overhaul of the page. Fantastiera (talk) 15:13, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose of this overhaul is to make the article read like a proper encyclopedic overview of the philosophical movement. The article should not be a mere historical listing. Instead, it should present main points, main philosophers, arguemnts, and relations to other philosophical topics. The proposal is based on looking at other high quality articles on philosophical positions and topics (see below).

Overview

[edit]

Definitions

// Take definitions from various books and articles to show a variety of ways scholars and commentators define pessimism.

Examples:

  • "Pessimism is, roughly, the view that life is not worth living" // Simmons (2020)
  • "the bad prevails over the good" // Prescott (2012)
  • "pessimism is the thesis that life is not worth living, that nothingness is better than being, or that it is worse to be than not be" // Beiser (2016)
  • "pessimism will cover all doctrines, reasoned or unreasoned, which distinctly deny this value to life, and represent it as something unworthy, unsatisfying, or lamentable" // James (1891)
  • "pessimism is a judgement of value regarding life or reality as a whole, which results from the conflict between man’s supreme value and the supposed facts of life" // Krusé (1932)
  • "(a) the nonexistence of the individual is preferable to their existence (henceforth individual-pessimism), and the claim that (b) the nonexistence of the world is preferable to its existence (henceforth world-pessimism)" // Hassan (2021)
  • "Plümacher specifies philosophical pessimism as comprising two propositions: ‘The sum of displeasure outweighs the sum of pleasure’ and ‘Consequently the non-being of the world would be better than its being’" // Janaway (2022a)

Main points

  • Life is not worth living
  • The bad prevails over the good
  • Absence of the world would be better // It would have been better had the world not existed
  • Coming into existence is a harm // Antinatalism - criticism of procreation
  • Humanking is inherently flawed // Misanthropy - regarding human nature

Arguments

  • Quality of life argument from Better Never to Have Been
  • Life is structurally negative, by Julio Cabrera
  • "a life is worth living only if it does not contain any uncompensated evils; but since all our lives happen to contain such evils, none of them are worth living." // Simmons (2020)
  • Schopenhauer's A Priori Argument for Pessimism // Hassan (2021)

The work for adding arguments to the main page is being tracked in Talk:Philosophical_pessimism#Arguments_to_add.

History

// A much shorter version, mentioning briefly a selection of items from the current Philosophical pessimism#Development of pessimist thought. The entirety of Philosophical pessimism#Development of pessimist thought should be moved into the dedicated article History of philosophical pessimism. See: Talk:Philosophical pessimism#A proposal to split the History into a dedicated page.

Pessimism and other philosophical topics

  • Animal rights // changed from "Regarding non-human animals"
  • Ethics // briefly discuss Suffering-focused ethics, Metzinger's "Suffering", Antifrustrationism and tranquilism, Schopenhauer's focus on compassion
  • Suicide // Hwang (2018), Cabrera (2021), Benatar (2017), Cholbi (2022), Sullivan-Bissett (2022), McGregor & Sullivan-Bissett (2012), Janaway (2022b)
  • Abortion // Benatar (2006), Cabrera (2021)
  • Stoicism // van der Lugt, Mara (2021), The Power of Pessimism
  • Biomedical enhancement // Moen (2021)

Responses to the bad in life

// Probably needs a better title

How do people deal with the bads in life:

Influence outside philosophy

  • TV and Cinema
  • Literature

See also

References

  • Notes
  • Citations
  • Bibliography

External links

Ideas on the organization of the sections

[edit]

"Philosophical pessimism#Definitions" could be merged with "Philosophical pessimism#Main points", if the two will be too short.

Some additional sections that can be considered

[edit]

Types of pessimism

Pessimism and religions

// This subsection of Points of contact with other philosophical topics could present similarities between certain ideas in religions and in pessimism

How to do it?

[edit]

The best way to perform the overhaul would be to first include some information in the new sections, then extract the long historical part into a separate article, and then continue working on the main article. For example


And already after the first 3 points, tThe article is already ready to be improved upon and extended based on the rough sketch outlined above.

Afterword

[edit]

This proposal is based on the analysis of various other high quality Wikipedia articles about philosophical topics, such as:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misanthropy

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existentialism

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stoicism

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nihilism

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idealism

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antinatalism

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cynicism_(philosophy)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pre-Socratic_philosophy

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knowledge

Discussion

[edit]

@Javierfv1212, Throughthemind, Gaeanautes, Spencerk, Lestrade, Omnipaedista, Sirhu, Tisane, Sinveil, Ihcoyc, FitzColinGerald, Nero's Fiddle, Delukiel, GreatLeader1945, Explicit, Immanuelle, AManWithNoPlan, Silver seren, Salpynx, Arjayay, ThaLibrarian, Revirvlkodlaku, Pessimu, Srich32977, 2NumForIce, Bruce1ee, Rkieferbaum, A.sav, Tommi1986, and TheVictoryOfTheProletariat: I'm calling you as I believe you might be interested in this project. Please consider taking a look and voicing your opinion.

Fantastiera (talk) 08:32, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I do like this idea. Great work.
With this complete restructure the article, it seems much of the work we've already put into it would be erased—is there a way to preserve some of it (kill your darlings notwithstanding)? I think, most notably, the 20th and 21st century philosophers would be worth including in some shape or form; something like a "modern pessimism" heading could work. I'm just not sure where it would exactly fit in this list. Delukiel (talk) 19:53, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, we would certainly not erase anything. We would simply copy the contents of Philosophical pessimism#Development of pessimist thought into a new dedicated article History of philosophical pessimism. And in our section Philosophical pessimism#History we would have a link to that new article, alongside a very brief account of pre-systematic (pre-Schopenhauer) as well as modern ideas. So, nothing will be lost, it would only be restructured.
Another idea would be to have a section Important philosophers where we could very briefly talk about them. I prefer the former, because it would be easier to briefly mention Buddhist and ancient Greek ideas. Fantastiera (talk) 15:01, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's a great idea too—I have a preference for the former as well.
How exactly should we start when reworking this page? I haven't contributed to a major overhaul before. Delukiel (talk) 22:17, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've added Talk:Philosophical pessimism#How to do it? as your question made it clear that it would be beneficial for all of us to see that plan. Fantastiera (talk) 15:32, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A proposal to split the History into a dedicated page

[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of this discussion was to perform the splitting of the section into a new page Fantastiera (talk) 15:25, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I propose that the long section Philosophical pessimism#Development of pessimist thought be split into a separate dedicated page called History of philosophical pessimism. The section is overly long and presents a chronological development of the philosophical position. It doesn't clearly explain various points and arguments philosophers make. It is much more suitable as dedicated article. No content will be lost, it will only be moved. Instead, we will have a very short section Philosophical pessimism#History that briefly outlines the most important historical developments. Alongside it, we will have new sections, outlines in Talk:Philosophical pessimism#A proposal for an overhaul of the article, which will greatly improve readability, usability, and overall quality of the present article.

The split will be done following the official Wikipedia procedure from Wikipedia:Splitting.

@Javierfv1212, Throughthemind, Gaeanautes, Spencerk, Lestrade, Omnipaedista, Sirhu, Tisane, Sinveil, Ihcoyc, FitzColinGerald, Nero's Fiddle, Delukiel, GreatLeader1945, Explicit, Immanuelle, AManWithNoPlan, Silver seren, Salpynx, Arjayay, ThaLibrarian, Revirvlkodlaku, Pessimu, Srich32977, 2NumForIce, Bruce1ee, Rkieferbaum, A.sav, Tommi1986, and TheVictoryOfTheProletariat: I'm calling you as I believe you might be interested in this project. Please consider taking a look and voicing your opinion.

Discussion

[edit]

Please share your thoughts, opinions, suggestions here.

  • Reading over the page, I think it might be possible to split it off after the religion section. For what is already here, I think the various pessimistic commentaries in religion might fit snugly. We could add a "main article" redirect on the new page or some such. Delukiel (talk) 07:21, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I must admit that my opinion on this matter differs from yours, Delukiel: I believe it would be better to include the "In religion" section in the split. James Sully, in Pessimism: A History and a Criticism (1877), for instance, considers Buddhism the "direct progenitor of the modern German systems" (page 38). Also, since we already have a section called "Dukkha as the mark of existence" (which is written in a more argumentative rather than historical style), moving the "Buddhism" section to the new article "History of philosophical pessimism" would reduce some of the redundancy currently present on this topic. Sirhu (talk) 14:55, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That's perfectly fine; I don't feel strongly about it either way. My opinion may change more depending on how the rework of the page pans out. My main thought is that showing pessimistic streaks within major religions could add something to this article.
    Maybe we can do the reverse—i.e., this page dedicates a small mention to it with a "main article" redirect toward the history page. Delukiel (talk) 18:47, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sirhu Delukiel, in #Some additional sections that can be considered I suggested adding a section Pessimism and religions , where something like that could be mentioned. We could get back to it after the move of the historical section — have a new section on the talk page and discuss it in detail. Fantastiera (talk) 21:50, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Good work! Delukiel (talk) 22:00, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Comment originally made in September 7 under the "poll" section; I moved it to the "discussion" section so that the talk page becomes more organized). Excluding the article's introduction, we presently have 12,282 words in total. The "Development of pessimist thought" section, in contrast, contains 10,199 words (minus the "Regarding non-human animals" section, which I am not sure we should transfer to the new article in case we decide to go through with this split). According to "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Splitting#Size_split": "Large articles may have readability and technical issues. A page of about 30 to 50 kilobytes (kB) of readable prose, which roughly corresponds to 6,000 to 10,000 words, takes between 30 and 40 minutes to read at average speed, which is right on the limit of the average concentration span of 40 to 50 minutes. Also, some users may have technical limitations, such as a low speed service, an unstable connection, or a pay per megabyte service." Considering that the article on "Philosophical pessimism" is bound to become even larger due to the addition of new arguments, counter-arguments, etc., it would seem prudent, in my opinion, to make a split between "Philosophical pessimism" (under which we could perhaps include, at the end of the article, subtypes of philosophical pessimism such as epistemological pessimism, etc.) and "History of philosophical pessimism". Sirhu (talk) 23:17, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Poll

[edit]

Do you Support or Oppose the suggested split and the article overhaul? Fantastiera (talk) 15:51, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I would like to bring back the The asymmetry between harms and benefits argument

[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of this discussion was bring back the argument. Fantastiera (talk) 17:38, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In this change the The asymmetry between harms and benefits has been removed from the Philosophical pessimism#Main arguments. I put it there, because I think it fits the page really well. Here are some of the reasons why:

  • antinatalism is the strongest modern trend in pessimism,
  • both Cabrera and Benatar are both pessimists and antinatalists,
  • I do not think that philosophical pessimism is restricted only to the badness of already existing. There are too many clues already in the page against such a view. We talk about Buddhism, where "birth is dukkha" and (re)coming into existence is the greatest evil. We have this quote: "Non-existence is preferable to existence — since existence is bad, it would have been better had it not have been. This point can be understood in one of the two following ways. Firstly, one can argue that, for any individual being, it would have been better had they never existed." from Philosophical pessimism#Tenets
  • we even have a subsection Philosophical pessimism#Antinatalism and procreation
  • Benatar's asymmetry is the most known argument for the badness of coming into existence.

I'm putting forward a motion to reinstate the argument. Do you agree, @Sirhu:? Fantastiera (talk) 14:59, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, Fantastiera; I just wanted to put my opinion out there and see if others agreed or disagreed.
Kind regards. Sirhu (talk) 15:55, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the fast response. I brought back the argument. Fantastiera (talk) 17:38, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Suggested sections

[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Closed as the section has been moved to Talk:History of philosophical pessimism as it fits that page after the split. Fantastiera (talk) 17:18, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It would be nice to have sections on more contemporary thinkers/writes such as Cioran, David Benatar, John Gray, Thomas Ligotti and Eugene Thacker Throughthemind (talk) 20:47, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It would also be good to include Al-Ma'arri somewhere Throughthemind (talk) 20:48, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agnes Taubert, Olga Plümacher and Amalie J. Hathaway should also be included under the post-Schopenhauerian pessimism section Throughthemind (talk) 21:00, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think something on Dialogue of Pessimism and other topics from Ancient Near East or other Ancient philosophy might be cool too, if there are reliable sources that synthesize them with modern pessimism :) - car chasm (talk) 21:57, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. We could also add Julio Cabrera. We have Philosophical pessimism#Notable proponents and Philosophical pessimism#Ancient philosophy, so now we face a choice on how to proceed:
A) Add another section, something like Philosophical pessimism#Modern philosophers, or
B) Remake our approach to presenting particular views. Fantastiera (talk) 16:33, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
HEAVILY Support. I was just about to come on here to suggest Cioran, probably the most notable pessimist in recent years before Ligotti and Thacker. User:Fantastiera, I'm in favor of option A. Delukiel (talk) 04:06, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a section on Cioran. Would be grateful if anyone can contribute to expanding it Throughthemind (talk) 10:16, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've also restructured the article to have sections for different time periods Throughthemind (talk) 10:52, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I can definitely add more on Cioran. Give me some time! Delukiel (talk) 04:54, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I've added more Cioran. Unfortunately, I may have contributed to the problem of relying on primary sources—it's only a few, though. Feel free to clean up my caveman language. Delukiel (talk) 16:55, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Sources

[edit]

A list of sources for various things to add/change referenced from other sections on this page.

GA Review

[edit]
Unsuccessful. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:57, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Philosophical pessimism/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Alice793 (talk · contribs) 22:20, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Phlsph7 (talk · contribs) 10:57, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Hello Alice793 and thanks for all your improvements to this article. However, despite the improvements, the article fails criterion 2b since there are too many unreferenced paragraphs. Examples are the paragraphs starting with "In the 20th and 21st centuries,", "Constant dissatisfaction — duḥkha — is an intrinsic", and "In Buddhism, the concept of duḥkha". According to criterion 2b, these passages require inline citations "no later than the end of the paragraph". I suggest that you add all the relevant references before a renomination.

A few other observations

  • WP:EARWIG detects one potential copyvio but this is because of a quotation.
  • The article presents some WP:NPOV views in Wikivoice. They need to be attributed to a person or a school of thought. Spotting all these cases for an article of this length can be tricky. You could try sending it to WP:PEERREVIEW for a more thorough examination. Examples are
    • Constant dissatisfaction — duḥkha — is an intrinsic mark of all sentient existence
    • The person who attains this state of mind lives his life in complete peace and equanimity
  • since existence is bad, it would have been better had it not have been. I think the last "have" should be removed.
  • thus explaining what it means to feel better, all that just with relying on taking away disturbances. replace "with" with "by". Or express more directly as "all that just by taking away disturbances"
  • the article switches between English variants, e.g. "favour" (British English) and "behavior" (American English)
  • and thus is only experienced in an indirect or mediate way replace "mediate" with "mediated"
  • that the moral dillemas of life replace "dillemas" with "dilemmas"
  • But they do serve to clarify as to why there are cases remove "as to"

Phlsph7 (talk) 10:57, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Philosophical_pessimism&oldid=1258680043"