just read some Mainländer and Schopenhauer. I generally don't like pessimists (and existentialists btw, they are very alike), they are, at best, mediocre as philosophers. besides ripping off Indian religions, their philosophies are simplistic. i would admit Mainländer is obviously better than Schopenhauer tho.
Here's the move that pessimist philosophers pull constantly, whether they admit it or not:
They borrowed the gnosis from Gnosticism and Indian religions. The problem is that they universalize their life experience and claim the conclusion applies universally.
Mainländer knew his philosophy came from personal crisis. He literally wrote an autobiography describing the "electrifying flash" of despair that birthed his system. He was self-aware enough to trace the origin — but not self-aware enough to question whether the origin contaminated the conclusion. He treated his breakdown as revelation, not as symptom.
We like to imagine that philosophical intuitions emerge from some clean space of pure rational reflection. Every "deep intuition" you have about the nature of reality is conditioned by things you didn't choose:
Let's be honest about who actually gets drawn to pessimism and existentialism.
The typical profile:
Nietzsche saw this clearly and mercilessly:
"The invalid is a parasite on society. In a certain state it is indecent to live any longer. The vegetative pining away in cowardly dependence on physicians and artifices, after the meaning of life, the right to life, has been lost, ought to arouse the profoundest contempt in society."
Of course Nietzsche himself, btw, fits the profile too. Sickly, lonely, rejected in love, academically brilliant but institutionally frustrated. Many incels including me, also fits the profile.
The biggest problem though, is that suffering and happiness are not objective properties of the world. They are human interpretations. A cluster of physical sensations is not inherently "suffering." It becomes suffering when we interpret it as such. And we are the ones who do the interpreting. We are the ones who have the concepts, the language, the frameworks.
So i conclude that pessimism, including existentialism as a form of it, is a dead end philosophically. it's premature enlightenment.
Here's the move that pessimist philosophers pull constantly, whether they admit it or not:
- Step 1: I experience life as suffering.
- Step 2: Therefore life is suffering — for everyone, at all times, in all conditions.
- Step 3: Anyone who disagrees is simply deluded. They haven't seen clearly. They're still trapped in the lie. (UNFALSIFIABLE)
They borrowed the gnosis from Gnosticism and Indian religions. The problem is that they universalize their life experience and claim the conclusion applies universally.
Mainländer knew his philosophy came from personal crisis. He literally wrote an autobiography describing the "electrifying flash" of despair that birthed his system. He was self-aware enough to trace the origin — but not self-aware enough to question whether the origin contaminated the conclusion. He treated his breakdown as revelation, not as symptom.
We like to imagine that philosophical intuitions emerge from some clean space of pure rational reflection. Every "deep intuition" you have about the nature of reality is conditioned by things you didn't choose:
- Time period. The post-1848 German Weltschmerz wasn't eternal metaphysical truth — it was a cultural mood among disappointed bourgeois intellectuals after a failed revolution. The pessimism was in the water. The same applies to existentialism: late capitalism, failed revolution.
- Social class. Mainländer was a wealthy banker's son who hated commerce and romanticized the military. His suffering was the suffering of alienated comfort, not of material deprivation. And here's the bitter irony: he recognized this! He wrote sympathetically about workers and supported social democracy. But he never asked whether the worker, exhausted from physical labor but surrounded by family, sharing bread and stories, might — in those moments — actually not wish for annihilation. He assumed their suffering matched his own.
- Life experience. Schopenhauer had a miserable relationship with his mother (a successful novelist who found him insufferable), was rejected romantically, and spent his life in bitter rivalry with Hegel. His philosophy says the Will is blind, aimless striving. Mainländer's philosophy says the Will is really a will-to-death.
Let's be honest about who actually gets drawn to pessimism and existentialism.
The typical profile:
- Middle class or upper-middle class. Not struggling for survival, but not fully at ease either. Enough comfort to have time for reading. Incels are not necessarily middle class or above, but in the current society many dont have to work.
- Above average intellect. smart enough to read philosophy and feel alienated from "the masses," but not so brilliant that you're genuinely fulfilled by intellectual work or recognized for it.
- Trauma or frustration in key domains. Family dysfunction. Romantic rejection or unrequited love. Failure in studies, career, or creative ambition.
Nietzsche saw this clearly and mercilessly:
"The invalid is a parasite on society. In a certain state it is indecent to live any longer. The vegetative pining away in cowardly dependence on physicians and artifices, after the meaning of life, the right to life, has been lost, ought to arouse the profoundest contempt in society."
Of course Nietzsche himself, btw, fits the profile too. Sickly, lonely, rejected in love, academically brilliant but institutionally frustrated. Many incels including me, also fits the profile.
The biggest problem though, is that suffering and happiness are not objective properties of the world. They are human interpretations. A cluster of physical sensations is not inherently "suffering." It becomes suffering when we interpret it as such. And we are the ones who do the interpreting. We are the ones who have the concepts, the language, the frameworks.
So i conclude that pessimism, including existentialism as a form of it, is a dead end philosophically. it's premature enlightenment.
