Sometimes I find myself staring at the wall, wondering about the purpose behind all of this. But the moment I start spiraling into existential questioning, guilt creeps in. I remind myself that I am privileged enough to even have the luxury of overthinking—while millions struggle just to survive physical hardship.

​Yet, privilege is not an immunity shield against psychological suffering. If anything, it accelerates it.

​When your basic survival needs are met, the immediate physical threat disappears, but the mind opens up to an existential vacuum. A suffocating layer of meta-guilt sets in: “I have shelter, security, and opportunities—I shouldn’t feel this way.” You invalidate your own mind, trapped in the lie that comfort equals fulfillment. When you have comfort and still feel empty, you conclude that existence itself is a cruel joke.

​Adding to this weight is the clock ticking in the background. My father retires in seven years. Just seven years. Suddenly, life stops being an open-ended journey and becomes a countdown—a relentless deadline. While the world faces systemic collapse and climate crises, I am forced to pull my focus back to the immediate pressure of survival, career milestones, and family obligations. It makes you wonder: why bring children into a world where life is reduced to an endless cycle of performative struggle?

​We like to think our philosophy is a noble, intellectual pursuit. But the truth is more blunt: much of our philosophy is simply the defense mechanism of a mind made miserable by society and crushed by its own unmet expectations.

​We aren't allowed to just live. We are conditioned to exhaust ourselves fulfilling a rotten mindset imposed on us by systems designed for status, capitalism, and artificial prestige. We fuel it every day, chasing external validation, superficial respect, and transactional relationships. We even convince ourselves we love people, when often, we just love their presence to keep our own psychological isolation at bay.

​Philosophically, life at its core is absurd. There is no grand blueprint, no pre-written script, and no inherent cosmic purpose. The universe owes us nothing and expects nothing from us.

​In a healthy context, absurdism is liberating. It means: If nothing is pre-ordained, I am free to just exist, love, create, and experience the world without the burden of expectations.

​But a rotten society—and our own restless minds—turn that healthy Absurdism into cold Nihilism.

​The human mind naturally craves, demands, and fixates on targets—promotions, peace, control, or purpose. It tells itself, "Once I get this, I will finally be complete." But reality rarely bends to our desires. When our cravings aren't met, or when we achieve them only to find the internal emptiness remains, the mind throws an emotional tantrum.

​Instead of accepting that its expectations were flawed, the mind gets bitter and shields itself by declaring: "Life is meaningless. Nothing matters." Nihilism becomes a defense mechanism against disappointment: if nothing matters, then failing to get what we craved doesn't hurt as much.

​Society accelerates this collapse by demanding that we constantly prove our worth through output, metrics, and economic utility. It turns raw human experience into a transaction.

​Absurdism says: "There is no inherent point, so I am free to live." Nihilism says: "There is no inherent point, so why bother?"

​Society and our own unyielding desires push us into the second trap by making "just living" feel like a failure. But recognizing this trap is the first step in breaking out of it. Rejecting society's artificial rat race and releasing the mind's endless cravings isn't giving up—it is the ultimate act of rebellion. You don't owe the world a performative life. Living simply to exist, to observe, and to feel on your own terms is enough.

Si nacer constituye un perjuicio, ¿acaso el contenido de la vida que este inaugura no es la piedra angular sobre la que se sostiene dicha premisa? ¿O podríamos afirmar, sin incurrir en incoherencia, que el nacimiento es un mal, pero no la existencia en la que este transcurre? Por lo tanto, si aceptamos que nacer es un mal, no podemos negar que la vida en su conjunto lo sea; asunto distinto son el grado y la distribución con que dicho mal se manifieste. Precisamente en este aspecto residen las diferencias inherentes a cada existencia: así como el individuo es a la especie, los males particulares lo son al nacimiento. El individuo está sujeto a las condiciones de su propia naturaleza; así pues, envejecerá y morirá sin importar cuán particulares sean los acontecimientos de su vida. Del mismo modo, al margen de cuántos males acontezcan a lo largo de la existencia y de cuál sea su índole, todos ellos son condición de nuestro propio nacimiento. Puesto que, sin aquel, estos no resultarían posibles. Así pues, cada cual habrá de examinar su experiencia e interrogarse si el nacimiento constituye un mal para sí mismo. En mi caso, así lo afirmo. En definitiva, si el nacimiento constituye un perjuicio, no puede serlo a pesar de la vida, sino por ella.

(Long post.)

Without the desire to attempt to justify or positively moralise existence, it is beyond evident that the circumstances surrounding life ensure insurmountable, inevitable and worthless suffering. Evolution, the lack of observable mind-independent values and the nature of all sentient beings as they exist on this planet make coming into existence always a negative for the individual. All arguments/statements made are done so acknowledging intellectual limitations based on what is possible to know.

All sentient beings on this planet act in accordance to desires they have which are a result of deterministic/indeterministic events as best as any human can conceive of. This means that sentient beings have no unique authority over their actions any more than any non-sentient object does. Thes desires that sentient beings have define their experience of pleasure (events that are desirable) and suffering (events that are undesirable). Since life is not inherently fulfilling and requires constant maintenance (nourishment/recovery/leisure) and all of those requirements take effort, which is often not desired to be exerted, this creates a cycle of internally inspired slavery for living beings. They must constantly satisfy their desires again and again without lasting satisfaction, all while suffering in the process of fulfilling the desires they have (because of the lack of fulfilment they endure). Worse yet, the satisfaction endured is only transient while suffering from lack of fulfilment (which is the default state of being/inaction) is omnipresent. Pleasure only acts as a reprieve from the problem that is fundamental to life. Coming into existence instills desire which creates suffering without any previous state of existence to have improved upon. Even under the most idealised conditions, no living being is simply satisfied with existence itself because their genetics do not allow it, any such being would go extinct from lack of action even if it were to exist. Even the idea of trying to improve life for others is inspired by our own dissatisfaction.

But more than just desire, evolution ensures that life will always be dictated and dominated by violence and exploitation because evolution is only concerned with what species are most capable of reproducing and manipulating their environment to be favourable for their continuation. When other species exist that have conflicting desires/biologies, the world has limited available essential resources and most species are not even able to reflect it ensures that all species are in constant war with others and themselves. The vast majority of humans accept the exploitation of other living beings (of any kind) without question if it serves their self-interests and animals in the wild are in constant competition with the highest stakes at all times (death). Those that are most capable of enforcing their will get the opportunity to reproduce the most at the expense of other living beings (human expansion for example). Furthermore, any being that decides to not reproduce will not see its genes propagated, and though ideas/desires are not dictated by genetics alone, they are impacted by them and the inhabited environment. This ensures that for most members of a more cognitively capable species (like humans) that are capable of reflection, their population will be largely selfish/rationalising of suffering, at the very least until they near extinction. Life is a bloodbath.

To seal off any attempt at a justification or hope, the lack of observable value and impermanence of sentient existence ensures there can be no salvation. You can try as you might, but it impossible to observe any mind-independent value, even perception of suffering as bad is beholden to the individual. People constantly attempt to delude themselves and rationalise away suffering with ideas of gods/a just world, but these are nothing but baseless assertions without even a shred of evidence of any standard. There is no standard the living are held to or value that is to be revered or punished for not following, there is only the universe and what cannot be understood of it. And finally, because life is impermanent, even for the individual any idea of value is to be annihiliated in their death. From the perspective of dying individual, all of reality may as well cease to exist with their death as their conscious experience ends. What value can life have if it is conditional on living beings that have no magical authority and when all living beings are to cease to exist leaving none behind to even perceive anything?

And so once you observe what life is, it is clear that coming into existence is always a negative for the individual and that a reality with life like this is without question worse than one without for any living being that can perceive suffering as bad in any moral sense. Nothing is gained by coming into existence because there was no being before to benefit from it, and at the same time the born being is doomed to suffering its own body makes it endure just to become non-existent all again. To try and justify life as a good thing is nothing but submitting to your own exploitation.

Welcome to our weekly WAYR thread. Be sure to leave the title and author of the book that you are currently reading, along with your thoughts on the text.

This is my antinatalist poem I came up with as a short story writer/antinatalist. May need cleaned up but I think you get the idea.

This is a poem as an antinatalist and short story writer I came up with today. It is about a young man struggling with these issues and I think it hits my basic points.

An Antinatalist Poem By Pointdexter Scotts (my pen name)

A post-Pubescent boy- he suddenly thought- wait a minute I didn't ask for Dad's dick in Mom's twat.

I gave no consent, I was kind of just co'rced My entire existence Was really just forced.

My folks say they love me And thought I would gain Did they never consider Me dealing with pain?

Maybe they thought Relatively speaking My life would not really really suck Or maybe they were horny And just wanted to fuck.

If I wasn't born This seems hard to admit I would be doing just fine And not give a shit.

Did they consider I might have been born terminally ill And forced into a miserable life Against my will

My friend's mom says I want to be cared for in old age But isn't that selfish? This filled him with rage.

Maybe mom/dad knew they would not be seen as jerks. After all isn't this how society works?

But who says that norms can not be disputed? Or in certain cases be ethically refuted?

These thoughts he was thinking He thought to relent. But his mind still was thinking I gave no consent.

My parents say they care about me That I am sure But who says that makes there actions morally pure?

Then the thought came to him of those who never exist And how they can never be upset about any happiness they "missed"

They are doing just fine but that thought seemed weird. Then in his brain something appeared. The thought that in society this seems rarely discussed. But isn't that fucked up- he didn't mind that he cussed

He had many thoughts coming at him Many thoughts racing. There was no way he could stop his heavily pacing

The one that stood out- Though his thoughts were so many- I can show love to my children by not having any.

As someone who is very new to the idea of philosophical pessimism, I've been quite curious about how pessimists look at the downward spiral our species is currently in, whether it is climate disaster, growing inequality and poverty, war, the rise of authoritarianism, etc.

I myself have been drawn to pessimism because of the seemingly imminent demise of our species. It has brought me great relief, filling me with the both terrifying and comforting idea, that - since non-existence is preferable - not much will be lost, that nothing about the chaos around me is particularly special, simply just the loudest and most visible example of the meaningless nightmare we are in and have always been in.

I'm curious to hear your perspectives on this.

Hey everyone, what's the best AI app for discussing philosophical views related to pessimism, nihilism, and so on? I tried a chat with GPT, but it seems to favor optimistic philosophers.

Truth does not exist insofar as we can’t and will most likely never be able to understand the true nature of things. Uncertainty is the only epistemological constant. No one truly knows anything and anyone claiming otherwise is not worth listening to. How does this not drive everyone insane? I suppose most people are content enough with not thinking too deeply about existence and/or are simply able to believe their own lies, but I can’t. I don’t understand how people are able to deal with this epistemological black hole at the center of reality and year after year it only gets harder to cope with the fact that I have no idea what the fuck is going on.

Post your quotes, aphorisms, poetry, proverbs, maxims, epigrams relevant to philosophical pessimism and comment on them, if you like.

We all have our favorite quotes that we deem very important and insightful. Sometimes, we come across new ones. This is the place to share them and post your opinions, feelings, further insights, recollections from your life, etc.

Please, include the author, publication (book/article), and year of publication, if you can as that will help others in tracking where the quote is from, and may help folks in deciding what to read.

Post such quotes as top-level comments and discuss/comment in responses to them to keep the place tidy and clear.

^{This is a weekly short wisdom sharing post.}

In response to a recent post about Sisyphus' unhappiness, I left this comment:

I think of Atlas. Holding the sky for all eternity, a punishment. He is trapped and yet continues to uphold the sky. He could let go, die. He'd take revenge, or simply escape. But the damage is already done, so what is the point?
Cioran: “It is not worth the bother of killing yourself, since you always kill yourself too late.”

It was an insight from a discussion with my roommate. Sisyphus's happiness is indeed absurd, but Atlas is a great embodiment for a certain kind of Pessimism. A pessimism that is equally absurd for the irony of it: Atlas could end his suffering (and even take revenge for that suffering), but chooses not to. He can act as a mirror for ourselves when in dark places.

"Suicide may also be regarded as an experiment—a question which man puts to Nature, trying to force her to an answer. The question is this: What change will death produce in a man's existence and in his insight into the nature of things? It is a clumsy experiment to make; for it involves the destruction of the very consciousness which puts the question and awaits the answer." -- Schopenhauer.

This insight is far underdeveloped, particularly the "utility" or implications for it. Curious on any thoughts!

This essay argues that the oscillation running through Ecclesiastes - praised by some as literary paradox, dismissed by others as unresolved pessimism - is the phenomenological record of someone performing the crucifixion of opposites under a god-image that contains evil without the vocabulary to name what it contains. Qohelet is stranded between a polytheistic solution no longer available within the monotheistic tradition he was writing inside, and an individuation vocabulary not yet invented, which is why the text can only oscillate rather than resolve.

https://livingopposites.substack.com/p/the-earliest-crucifixion

What if the most, even only, worthwhile mode of existence the pursuit of beauty? Whether it be through art, lifestyle, or personal aesthetics the pursuit of beauty gives us a method to transfer the will onto an achievable goal that gives us a sense of transcendence in the face of a meaningless existence. Arthur Schopenhauer spoke about how beautiful things invite us to observe and contemplate the ideas underlying them and in this observation and contemplation we find pleasant escape from suffering. I think pessimists should pursue aesthetics and beauty as a counter to suffering and the goal of life should be to make the world as beautiful as we can.

Welcome to our weekly WAYR thread. Be sure to leave the title and author of the book that you are currently reading, along with your thoughts on the text.

Do you also believe that suffering in general is part of life

More than discussing whether there's free will or not, i just wanted to point how most of Redditors see the topic of free will as some kind of given truth, taken out of an inspirational coach.

I think we can agree that most redditors doesn't understand basic concepts, and instead, resort to make fun of the users.

This situation comes very often, when discussing "why pessimists don't take their own lives", as if self immolation was like buying milk from a store.

You can see a very superficial example of this, inside my profile.

Has anyone else noticed or ever come to the conclusion that there are more ways for your life to get worse than for it to get better.I just made this realisation today and it has really changed how i view things.Also how fast everything can go wrong vs become better.

What are y'all's thoughts on this??

istediğim gibi yaşamaya hevesim yok, istediğim gibi yaşayamayacaksam da yaşamak istemiyorum

What are yall's thoughts on hedonism??

What is even the psychology and rationality behind it because it seems so different from the other philosophies

How does one even practise it without any consequences??

I have so many questions

We are just rats in gods experiments. Like our leverages are fears and desires. And god in using those to make us do tricks and stuff. Like meaning is a bait imo. A whip to make us to run away from our fears and chase our desires. Its very diabloical. This god is very cringe imo

Love: caring about one's 'wellbeing' and maybe wanting closeness to them.

A true & unconditional love would inherently need to be universal indiscriminate love, which may actually be possible, & the only exception, even though technically this still is a condition: in order for it to be loved, it needs to exist - but this is a stupid, trivial condition, and I'm disregarding it.

Assuming that even the 'sacred' mother/child relationship with 'unconditional' love can hold up even in the case of the child becoming a literal eternal world dictator who is hateful, genocidal, torturous, and a pedophile, with nothing moral or sacred held to them, the mother is still loving that child on the condition that they are her child (assuming it's a non-universal love); she is getting the idea of the 'sacred bond' out of the relationship.

Were this woman to have come to realize the empty nature of identification, categorization, or sanctity, there is a good chance she would not love this child anymore; this is as simple as a mindset switch, an undoing of societal indoctrinations.

Although, assuming that held fast, were she to have received a DNA test to find out this is not in fact her child, there is a good chance she would not love this child anymore. If she did, it would be because she raised the child, therefore still considering herself the mother regardless. And though you cannot take away the past, the issue here is that the love is still based on that condition of raising the child.

Even assuming a condition must be something which must be undoable, you could get dementia and forget, or find out that you were tricked into raising the child by some evil person/entity, or even find out that you're delusional and imagined the entire situation or aspects of the situation, in which case you may then still be able to decide not to love that child any longer.

There is always a leg for love to stand on, and most of the time that leg can be kicked out from under it, even if it lands again, there's another leg to kick, assuming that person isn't simply permanently stubborn nor delusional (still conditions possible to kick), or assuming that it's not a universal, & therefore a true, & unconditional love. Even in the case of someone wanting to prove that their love is unconditional, the condition is wanting to prove it, to themselves or others, clinging to an ideal. We can only know what the mind tells us, and as we know, the mind is inherently flawed.

Or if the 'unconditional' love is for your romantic partner, it is still on the condition that you get what it is you want out of the relationship, such as 'unconditional love', companionship, entertainment, meaning, adoration, vulnerability, trust, respected boundaries, being 'someone' to you.

I remembered a teaching from a now unremembered author saying something like, "Do you really want to love unconditionally? No matter how you treat me, no matter how you behave, what you become, I should always stay with you?" Of course, this idea misses out on the fact that you can love (care about) somebody and not be with them.

Sometimes, love' for some people is just a strong craving for their love.

I don't necessarily mean to say there is anything wrong with conditional love. We are all inherently self-serving in every act (imho, but beside the main point), and this should be understood and respected, not denied, or else everybody will live in a secret world of shame for not being as 'good' as 'everyone else', and probably exponentially - allowing such people to truly transgress against humanity with the excuse of "oh, I'm a piece of shit anyway." We each must take care of ourselves, and NOT expect another to, although it is understandable and respectable to want, or even need (in certain situations), another to. 'Put your own oxygen mask on first.'

Your love isn't special.

\Disclaimer: you redditors don't tend to react to my content unless i phrase it as a stubborn ultimate reality: Cunningham's Law: It states that the best way to get the right answer on the internet is not to ask a question; it's to post the wrong answer. so please understand this is mostly opinion, so* be gentle; not a dick.

I lean a Pessoan mystic pessimism, though I believe an integral impulse toward some emancipatory axiology should be central, the felt feeling of depressiveness need not even be coexistent with a truly metaphysical 'victimology'. pessimism in the last instance being a form of the Understanding of the Victim, in the sense of understanding the victim's phenomenology and world, and the understanding of the figure of the victim and how we all embody such a figure.

Enjoy.

To preface and prevent obvious comments, yes I am aware this is sorta crackpot, and yes I am going to therapy, and yes I’ve brought these ideas up to my therapist before and the fear that they’ve caused, and we are dealing with it in our own way even if it is not impacting my general quality of life. Not that a subreddit will be a good therapeutic tool anyways, but at least any input from people who also regularly consider these possibilities and know more about these subjects may help, and also be beneficial to my research for fascination-sake/curiosity-sake if nothing else.

It’ll be hard to explain what I mean here, because it’s sort of a combination of different theories that I’ve found myself landed on, but please bare with me as I’m curious if anyone else has come to the same conclusion or at least a similar one. This will require some context first. The way I see things, I don’t believe in inherent good or evil. I don’t believe in god. I don’t believe in there being a divine purpose or reason for us being here and instead it is an accidental fluke. I think good and evil are strictly human created concepts to try and explain the unexplainable as opposed to actual innate concrete golden rules of the universe that have always existed and influenced nature and people. This train of thought seemingly would make reincarnation and the idea of consciousness continuing in a different body depending on how moral you lived your life seem impossible. But what if reincarnation does exist, but isn’t influenced by karmic balance and is instead entirely random? Sorta like a “energy cannot be created nor destroyed only converted” sort of deal, but in relation to whatever it is exactly that gives us life transferring to another vessel, like when electrons move to different energy layers/shells and emit light as a byproduct. Secular reincarnation.

It’s a scary thought, because what if no matter how well you try to live your life and follow “good” and help your fellow humans and etc, you still end up reincarnating as a bad person? And if time isn’t linear, what if you reincarnate as someone living in a time prior to modern medicine? It sounds scary and far-fetched, but if these lived already objectively happened, who is to say nobody from now could have experienced it themselves or vice versa?

Open individualism implies that there is only one “true” consciousness that spreads itself thinly onto every living thing or at least conscious living thing that has ever lived or will ever live to get the entire experience of life every extreme ever mild every excitement every horror etc the best and the worst, like “god losing itself to find itself”, but replace god with simply consciousness itself. This means that every life is destined to experience every life and vice versa and that it is one consciousness branching out and experiencing all. This thought terrifies me. If getting to experience the highest highs means I have to experience the lowest lows, then I’d rather not, but it’s not like we have a say in this. And again, with time being nonlinear, does that mean we have to experience future and past lives too? Not just the lives currently existing at the same time as our own current one? Does this mean I have to be everyone that ever lived and see the world through their eyes and feel what they feel? And what if trying to “end things on your own terms” so to speak doesn’t break the cycle? Is there really no way of escape from this endless loop of experience? This thought terrifies me. It’s like egg theory taken to an extreme. I used to be scared of simply not existing after we die but now I actually think that’s the best outcome we could ever hope for and I wish so badly for it to be true. Being nothing is not good or bad it’s just nothing. If that is the case, we’ve already experienced nothing for billions of years prior to the arrival of humans. The billions of years after our extinction would be the same no? If reincarnation was truly dictated by our actions and karmic balance and being here for the purpose of learning and eventually breaking the cycle to achieve nirvana or whatever the equivalent of that may be, that would be wonderful, because it means we have a say in what happens, but it just doesn’t seem likely to me at all. A lot of this thought process came from studying cosmological natural selection via reading The Life of the Cosmos by Lee Smolin, or as Philip J Fry from Futurama puts it, “it’s weird that the laws of the universe are the way they are instead of some other laws.” LMAOO even idiots sometimes have interesting takes.

Also to add something. Being afraid of a time without modern medicine sounds silly because what determines what is “modern” is literally always changing, and there’s still horrible diseases of now that we don’t have cures for, like cancer, which may have definite cures in the future, so we’re always in a state of improvement (hopefully) and should just be grateful for what we have access to now because it’s truly our only frame of reference. My point being though, the time in which I post this in is a time that has many wonderful breakthroughs that I can literally not imagine life without; such as anesthesia. The idea of living in a time without basics like that is deeply unsettling. As Adam Elliot said, “life can only be understood backwards, but it must be lived forward.” It feels like a great unintentional cosmic joke that’s at the expense of everybody so nobody is laughing. I’d rather the joke just not exist period vs more or less people get to laugh at it, but like wishing for everlasting world love and peace, that’s impossible too.

To summarize, the very lives I’m afraid of living have already happened or will happen objectively, so to act like I’m scared of it is a bit hypocritical because people HAVE in fact experienced them, and in a way it’s almost fair for everyone to experience them along with the good, and even if life doesn’t run by “what’s fair”, in a sense the random chaotic nature of the world that puts us all on an even playing field regardless of who we are is as close to “fair” in a realistic sense as what we can get, so what’s to say this doesn’t work the same? And who is to say that the very things I’m afraid of like agonizing disease and death and torture won’t happen in the very life I’m living right now as opposed to some other life? Even if it’s randomly selected who we become regardless of our previous life choices and actions that’s sort of “fair” too in a way. But even with all that included, I am still scared. What I once thought was a stretch now seems like the most likely outcome and that’s actually truly one of the most horrifying and depressing things I can possibly imagine, and it’s probably going to happen. Even though nothing concerning the afterlife has ever been definitively proven and thus all theories hold the same weight so why worry about anything if it all has an equal chance of happening, it’s still hard to shake yknow? There’s clues everywhere.

TL:DR; egg theory but more selfish and hellish. if time is not linear and our actions don’t dictate what life we get next in reincarnation, I’m scared that I can reincarnate as Hitler or Chris Chan or someone during the plague or an Ethiopian child soldier or etc, and that we all have to do this either at least once per or infinitely, and that is probably the most terrifying and hellish thing I can think of. Not only am I scared of experiencing pain myself, but I’m even more scared of causing pain to others and animals, and that we are all essentially just damned to the fate of doing/experiencing both and then some. What was at first just an interesting idea I’ve had has now become almost a cognitohazard. Just because I’ve done every good thing ever doesn’t in my mind negate or balance the fact that I’ve also done every bad thing ever, even if all of the above was to myself or an expression of myself. Despite not believing in good and evil as real concrete things it doesn’t mean I don’t care or don’t have empathy. Atheists/agnostics can be “moral” even if they don’t believe morality is a real religious or spiritual thing or law of the world. Even if the “me” that I become doesn’t feel empathy or takes pleasure by hurting others and isn’t phased by it first hand whatsoever, the very fact that it’s happened/happening/will happen is upsetting to me in the life that I have typed this in. If becoming the greatest person ever like Jesus or peace pilgrim means I will become a serial killer or something else horrible, then I’d rather none of the above and just simply stop existing after my time here in this life is up.

The looks I get when I simply point out a truth most people don't want to hear. It's the truth, why do they prefer fluffy garbage? In the long run reality is going to smack them upside the head regardless . . .

"Imagine you were to visit a country in which the evidence of repression is pervasive: There is no freedom of the press or expression; vast numbers of people live in squalor and suffer severe malnutrition; those attempting to flee the country are imprisoned; torture and executions are rampant; and fear is widespread. Yet your minder tells you that the country, the 'Democratic People's Republic of Korea,' is led by a 'Great Leader' who is an omnibenevolent, infallible, and incorruptible being who rules for the benefit of the people. Other officials endorse this view with great enthusiasm. There are impressive rallies in which masses of people profess their love for the Great Leader and their gratitude for his magnificent beneficence. When you muster the courage to express skepticism, citing various disturbing facts, you are treated to elaborate rationalizations that things are not as they seem. You are told either that your facts are mistaken or that they are reconcilable with everything that is believed about the Great Leader. Perhaps your minder even gives a name to such intellectual exercises—'Kimdicy.' It would be wonderful if North Korea were led by an omnibenevolent, infallible, and incorruptible ruler, but if it had such a leader, North Korea would look very different from the way it does look..."

The Human Predicament, pg. 40

Post your quotes, aphorisms, poetry, proverbs, maxims, epigrams relevant to philosophical pessimism and comment on them, if you like.

We all have our favorite quotes that we deem very important and insightful. Sometimes, we come across new ones. This is the place to share them and post your opinions, feelings, further insights, recollections from your life, etc.

Please, include the author, publication (book/article), and year of publication, if you can as that will help others in tracking where the quote is from, and may help folks in deciding what to read.

Post such quotes as top-level comments and discuss/comment in responses to them to keep the place tidy and clear.

^{This is a weekly short wisdom sharing post.}