@Jean Améry so you believe all who seem content in their lives are deluded? Not that they were taught how to enjoy life properly as children and were protected enough not to be abused? I am an optimist when it comes to all of humanity. I am a pessimist with my life.
Just because Buddha said life is suffering doesn't make it so. Pain in life is inevitable — we cannot avoid pain in 2019. Maybe in the future there will be technology capable of preventing one to feel pain. Suffering is where we take pain and we do not manage it properly. I am not articulating my point very well — I am trying to say that there are so many people here embracing a philosophy to justify ctb. Maybe it's a European thing. Maybe that's why Americans hate to sit around and analyze things. The more we delve the more we suffer. Much better to live one's life just creating, loving, laughing than to sit around and bitch and moan about their suffering. But if you weren't born into a situation where you learned how to manage your pain, this led to suffering and then wanting to ctb.
[/QUOTE
In a way yes. We are equiped with psychological mechanisms to cope with the inevitable suffering of life: it's called the Polyanna Principle. Humans are more apt to remember positive events in the past rather than negative ones, nearly all humans think they are better off than average which is impossible, we lower our expectations of reality to the expectations of those around us...
Humans are notoriously bad at honest, realistic self-assesment.
Biologically we chase dopamine and we are driven to live no matter what. It's no wonder that nature provides us with a rosy outlook on life: clearly this is the product of pure instinct, not reasonable assesment.
Personally I think I'd be better off dead and this is the product of a reasonable thought process on two levels: life in general and my life in particular. What stops me is love for others which is also largely biological.
We truly are nature's fools and half-rational monkeys. I'm of the opinion that if homo sapiens sapiens was truly rational our species would have determined life is not worh the effort and the pain and we would have died out long ago.
You misunderstand my meaning about Buddha: it's not an argument from authority. You claimed philosophers hold pessimistic views because of personal suffering. I provided a counterexample: Buddha. Schopenhauer enjoyed good meals, fine music, good literature, walks, went to the theater, journeyd... Clearly he wasn't unhappy for most of his life.
The truth of Buddha's assesment and of pessimism in general rests on reality itself: Buddha analyzed the nature of life and found it was full of discomfort, pain and want. His assesment was based on observations: birth is suffering, death is suffering, sickness is suffering, frustration is suffering...
All these sources of suffering are inherent to life hence his formulation 'life is suffering'.
Logically this implies the only way to escape suffering is to escape life itself. Of course Buddha believed in the unprovable dogma of reincarnation thus he didn't advocate suicide but a path of personal liberation and discipline. Since I don't believe in reincarnation I don't believe his solution is sound even though I wish I could believe it.
We get used to pain and learn how to minimize it. We also learn to ignore it which is what you seem to advocate. 'Don't think about it and it'll just dissapear'. I find this attitude odd to say the least.
It could be that Europeans are more pessimistic and perhaps more philosophically inclined in general. I don't know enough about American philosophy to determine whether that is true. I do know there are American pessimists: Thomas Ligotti for one or Gary Inmendham.
If people could work, live, laugh, create and enjoy things as you say they probably wouldn't be here, would they? Would you be here if you could do that?
Lastly: truth has nothing to do with practical use or advantage. Equating the two is the folly of American pragmatism.