Is it even possible to be optimistic about the future?

I can accept my own suffering, but not the suffering of my fellow man: that would lead to moral paralysis and complete stagnation.
For them I can work and fight, and ignore them in those moments in which I want enjoy my life as it is.
Regardless, acceptance and ignorance are personal, psychological processes, whoch have no bearing over the actual state of affiars, whoch might in fact need to be reshapen or fixed (in that case your attitude would be irrelevant, the fsct that you are working for any sich cause would be enough to prove that you are at heart a pessimist).

What allows you to accept your own suffering but your fellow man's? He is very much a moral agent like you and should be able to weather his own suffering. If not, he should not be a concern to you.

What current state of affairs? You could not say anything more vague.

Lastly, by acceptance I mean like one would accept crime in the sociological sense. Crime is a social fact that has existed in every human society and that will continue to exist as long as human societies exist. It is a normal thing ; which does mean that it is necessarily good. If it is normal ; it also has pathological expressions which we (probably?) ought to fight against.

Suffering is very much like crime.

Her fat juicy tits.

Her heart

>What allows you to accept your own suffering but your fellow man's?
So far I have been able to bear and tolerate every aspect of my life. I can't say this for every single one of my fellow mens, and I'm fully aware that many people out there needs either guidance, some help or a model. I knoww that at the very least I can help by working for the less fortunates and by aiding causes in which I truly believe. I'm not rich, nor I am a great man who can inspire the masses, but I can still help.

>What current state of affairs? You could not say anything more vague.
Human suffering is omnipresent and multifaceted: I'm not capable to give you a nice, simple summary of every istance of unbearable suffering in our human condition, it's a question that is far too vast.
To see how it's semantically vague, but practically concrete, just look around.

>Suffering is very much like crime.
To be a pessimist does not imply suffering, it just implies that basic observation leads to the conclusion that something is wrong woth the world (and to rationalize it as nature is to renounce to my humanity, for I know that many of these problems can be actually solved).
Personally I'm a pessimist, but I'm not depressed nor do I suffer: that outlook leads to moral and human paralysis, and to the stagnation and crystallization of human suffering.
The world does not need another guy who complains and whines all day long about his minor problems.

The End of History and the Last Man by Francis Fukuyama

You're dodging the question by implying that the conclusion has already been reached and is obvious. There is no a priori reasons to believe that human suffering is 1) Bad to the extent that you presume 2) Necessarily bad (pain seems quite bad yet is useful and sometimes good) 3) Generated by powers outside the control of men (indeed many men suffers as a result of their own faults)

Choosing to live ; which is indeed a continuous choice and not a one time event ; is signing a binding contract with Fate that forbids from claiming that you were not aware of the risks that it entailed. Which does not mean that you are unallowed of crying, whining, fighting or contesting ; much like a victim of a violent crime is allowed to cry out injustice ; but he cannot claim ignorance and so you too cannot.

From a practical point of view, I do not think one can help as much as he thinks he can. From an aesthetic point of view, I do not believe that it is always right to help someone even if that person benefits more from you helping him than you lose from lending a helping hand.

There is nothing unbearable about human suffering. It is very bearable ; proof is humanity's enduring persistence. The idea that the elimination of human suffering would be the greatest good is in fact the greatest evil.

>Bad to the extent that you presume
I live in a third world country. My village has lots of homeless children, many of them are addicted to drugs (glue is pretty big here). Am I crazy if I think that I can at least help some of these people?
That said I would be crazy if I wanted to dismiss their suffering and their hopelesness: if I'm not in their situstion is due to sheer lack (thankfully I had found a role model in my brother).
And homeless children in my village are just the top of the iceberg of what has to be dealt with in this world.

>Necessarily bad (pain seems quite bad yet is useful and sometimes good)
I'm not going to justify this suffering. It has to be dealt with, in a way or another.

>Generated by powers outside the control of men (indeed many men suffers as a result of their own faults)
Not everyone, and even if someone is cause of his own's disgrace, that does not mean that he suddenly deserve to be left dying in the streets.
Also, the example I have made earlier picture an example of cycles that are outside of my and your control, and will probably keep propagating for countless generations after my death.

>Choosing to live
Rephrase it: no one chooses to live. It should be "choosing not to commit suicide", but committing suicide and leaving this world is not a neutral option, it's not something you just do.

>is signing a binding contract with Fate that forbids from claiming that you were not aware of the risks that it entailed.
You are giving for granted something that isn't. I'm afraid yoi thought I was talking sbout first world problems (of which I know nothing, to be honest).

>but he cannot claim ignorance and so you too cannot.

Humans are not rational perfect beings, and I won't ever treat my fellow man this arbitrarily. I'm not going to rationalize suffering that can be partislly dealt with. To be more concise: I don't share your point of view because I know that I can literally help people in the real world, regwrdless of every semantic problem and idealist quarrell

>From a practical point of view, I do not think one can help as much as he thinks he can.
I can't save the world, no one can. This is not an excuse for hedonism and inactivity.

>From an aesthetic point of view, I do not believe that it is always right to help someone even if that person benefits more from you helping him than you lose from lending a helping hand.
From an aesthetic point of view homeless addicted children bother me more than helping them.

>The idea that the elimination of human suffering would be the greatest good is in fact the greatest evil.
Idiocy. Are you really willing to rationalize the example I've given you? To accept it and say that trying to fix it is in fsct the greater evil? Please.

>ywn impregnate that
why live?

That depends... do you believe in life?

What if this lady mistook your face for a chair haha

Pessimist

Optimist

This post is cute :3

Sauce?

Haha, imagine that! I'd probably have to start licking her butthole to make sure she realised her mistake

That cutie makes me optimistic.

>Talk about the universality of man's suffering in the absolute
> muh practical and immediate third world issues

What is the point of this thread and why are you moving the goalposts?

>I'm not going to justify this suffering. It has to be dealt with, in a way or another.

Suffering IS, user. I'm explaining it, not justifying it. Explaining that crime is normal is not doing an apology of crime.

>Not everyone, and even if someone is cause of his own's disgrace, that does not mean that he suddenly deserve to be left dying in the streets.

My point is not that you shouldn't help ; but that you helping others is a proof of the world's natural hierarchy. Not everyone is equal, and not all humans deserve love. By all means, in your situation, help others, but don't try to apply your logic to all societies.

>Rephrase it: no one chooses to live. It should be "choosing not to commit suicide", but committing suicide and leaving this world is not a neutral option, it's not something you just do.

Half true. You don't consent to exist in the first place, but everything after is consent. EVERY action you take that isn't a step towards suicide IS life affirming. It's not something you just do ; you're right user, but that's because humans are not fully rational. The problem is not with the logic, but with the inherent weakness in man. Some people have in fact believed the world was this way and committed suicide.

I'd suggest reading this.

epicurus.net/en/menoeceus.html

user, it's obvious we're not talking about the same thing here. If you live in some third world shithole and want to help the local kid off the block addicted to glue, then go help him. That's very nice of you.

However, I believe what I said is correct. The most dangerous ideologies today, say transhumanism, anti-natalism, ''oppression'' based identity politics are all symptomatic of the idea that ''the elimination of human suffering would be the greatest good'' which IS in fact a great evil because suffering is both a necessary and useful component of the human experience. This is not a rationalization ; it's reality. It doesn't mean we shouldn't fight against human suffering ; but that we should seek a reduction of suffering and not an elimination of it.

Now this thread has literally nothing to do with literature, and I'm surprised mods have not deleted it ; esp. considering everyone has had the time to save OP's picture.

I would accept any future if it had women of that sort.

>What is the point of this thread and why are you moving the goalposts?
You implied that I'm making wring assumptions about human suffering. I have talked about the actual, real context in which I'm living. Said context leave very little space for idealism, semantics and philosophical discussion, for I can see in first person the result of the help that a single man can give. It's a very concrete thing.

>Suffering IS, user. I'm explaining it, not justifying it. Explaining that crime is normal is not doing an apology of crime.
I can interact with said suffering when it's due to material conditions. I can't fix an existential crisis, but I can literally help homeless people. I have not said that you are apologetic of crime, in fact I have not quoted your passage on acceptance because I agree with you. In the last parsgraph of my last post I have also mentioned my opinion about responding to crisis and suffering with depression and defeatism, and how this is not what I'm going on.

>but that you helping others is a proof of the world's natural hierarchy.
You're talking about the world as if it's not something fluid: a person might need help oly once in their life, and that would not make them inferior. You tell me that people are not equal, I tell you that I will be able to say so when kids in my country will stop being swayed by criminal organizations and when they will stop ruining themselves with drugs before they reach their teenagehood. Once the situstion is normalized I will start thinking sbout hierwrchies: until then I'll keep wondering how many Beethovens have we lost due to vicious societal cycles such as this one.
When the social context is so warped, making any such normative statement becomes impossible, at least to me.

>which IS in fact a great evil because suffering is both a necessary and useful component of the human experience.
Most of the philosophers who admitted this truth were not speaking about misery, drug addiction and gang banging that starts when you are 8. Nietzsche was talking about his ailments, and his fear of death, which was then suddenly overcome in his worst moments of illness. A very long stretch from justifying any arbitrary injustice on the basis that by overcoming it someone may get better. In this sense I regard certain obstacles as legitimate and others as not. As such eliminating the injustices I'm talking about (and I don't think I've said anythinf controversial so far) would not imply eliminating suffering, for suffering and depression is a costant all thorough the world.
In this sense, to quote you
>but that we should seek a reduction of suffering and not an elimination of it.
I think we are on the same page.