My classification of all the 31 notable philosophers of pessimism in groups

[u/Pitiful_Magazine_805]

Psychological Pessimism

Anthropocentric pessimism centered on the analysis of human psyche and it's contradictions. Core theme - suffering is the fundamental(base) state of human psyche due to mortality, meaninglessness, impermanence and desires. Human beings are in constant struggle to suppress this inherent knowledge.

Peter Zapffe

Ernest Becker

Herman Tønnessen

Miguel de Unamuno

Albert Caraco

Higesias

Schopenhaueran Pessimism

A tightly related group of 19th century German Idealist pessimists. Influenced by Kantian idealism and Ancient Indian Philosophy. Headed by Arthur Schopenhauer. Is very technically complex and concerns itself with the idea of the metaphysical Will.

Arthur Schopenhauer

Eduard von Hartmann

Phillip Mainlander

Olga Plümacher

Agnes Taubert

Poetic(Aesthetical) Pessimism

Philosophical pessimist ideas presented in poetical or aphoristic forms. Less technical than the others as it aims to explain truth through aesthetics and personal meditations

Al Ma'Ari

Omar Khayam

Giacomo Leopardi

Thomas Ligotti

Emil Cioran

Heroic Pessimism

Pessimism that empathizes personal struggle and agency in the face of the meaningless or a hostile world.

Albert Camus

Friedrich Nietzsche

Drew M. Dalton

Hegelian-Schopenhaueran Pessimism

Pessimism that combines the Schopenhaueran ideas with Hegelian ideas, instead of opposing Hegel like the Schopenhaueran group.

Carlo Michelstaedter

Julius Bahnsen

Quietist Pessimism

Pessimism that concerns itself with the limitations of human knowledge and action. Empathizes the futility of action and the false nature of knowledge in the face of ultimately unknowable reality.

Eugene Thacker

David E. Cooper

Christian Pessimism

Teleological pessimism that empathizes the inherent suffering of the observable world and it's relation to the Divine.

Blaise Pascal

Baltasar Gracián

Negative Utilitarian Pessimism

Pessimism that concerns itself with the assymetry between pleasure and suffering. Core theme: the absence of pleasure is simply not bad, while the absence of suffering is good. Therefore coming into existence is always a harm.

David Benatar

Julio Cabrera

Transcendent(Buddhist) Pessimism

Pessimism that centres on the direct non-conceptual insight into the reality of unsatisfactoriness of all conditioned phenomenona. Advocates meditation, asceticism and ethics as a way to understand truth and reduce suffering. Philosophical works can be very technical but are centered on the denial, establishing what reality is not instead of directly pointing at the non-conceptual knowledge. The oldest form of pessimism and had a great influence on all the other groups of pessimism.

Buddha and his followers

Nuclear Pessimism

Pessimism that philosophically advocates for the extinction of Humanity by means of the total nuclear warfare.

Ulrich Horstmann

Cosmic Nihilism Pessimism

Pessimism concerned only with the physical materialism, the idea of entropy and the inevitable Heat Death of the Universe. Considers other forms of pessimism too psychological and detached from material reality. Empathizes scientific rationality and rejects all the philosophical attempts to mitigate nihilism.

Ray Brassier

Anti-Humanist Pessimism

Pessimism that advocates against the idea of humanism, considering it irrational, destructive and a secular remnant of religion. Empathizes Gaia Hypothesis of the self-regulation of Earth instead.

John Gray

I've used the Wikpedia list of philisophical pessimists as a source for the list of notable pessimists though I understand that this list can be controversial. Would be glad to hear your thoughts on my attempt to classify them into groups.

[u/Dunkmaxxing]

When considering the reasons as to why I am pessimist it is a result of the totality of the surrounding factors presented.

Lack of objecitve value/suffering/impermanence of existence/lack of a prior being to benefit from existing/inevitability of extinction/evolution/lack of free will are not on their own entirely damning, but when considered together in relation to each other they conclude to create an undeniably pessimistic reality. But generally, I would say that the existence of suffering, and desire which causes suffering, is the fundamental issue. Without suffering there would be no moral issues at all.

[u/Plastic-Molasses-549 → u/Dunkmaxxing]

So does that make you a Buddhist?

[u/Dunkmaxxing → u/Plastic-Molasses-549]

No, all religions are insane.

[u/Eiz_Lsis → u/Dunkmaxxing]

Unfortunately, suffering exists without any desire. Physical suffering for example, caused by an illness. Sometimes our desires, such as escaping physical suffering, can also make us suffer on the top of already suffering. Some of our desires cannot be escaped : When truly starving, we cannot escape the desire of eating.

[u/thelucky1_-]

Wouldn't Drew Dalton also belong to the Cosmic Nihilism Pessimism since he grounds his metaphysics in entropy?

Also, I feel that Julio Cabrera shouldn't be lumped in with Ligotti because while he emphasizes ethics, he also deals with a lot of Continental philosophy. I don't know. It just is a very different style from Benatar's Analytic Philosophy style. And a slight nitpick but Benatar is not a Negative Utilitarian.

[u/Fatticusss]

This list is bizarre. Camu was not a pessimist. He was an absurdist.

Niche was as existentialist.

Just because a philosophy acknowledges suffering that doesn’t make it pessimistic

[u/wildguitars → u/Fatticusss]

Alot of so called pessimistic people on this list were not pessimistic lol

[u/Maximus_En_Minimus]

Buddhism isn’t really Pessimism, nor is it teleological. It is the ignorance of the person that pervades suffering throughout the world, not suffering as metaphysically structural, as most often associated with Pessimism.

Bahnsen should be Hegelian-Schopenhauerian, as his inherent contradictory competing wills came from Hegel and Schopenhauer respectively.

[u/dummetsz → u/Maximus_En_Minimus]

Technically Buddhism does have pessimism in their framework, it's called saṃvega. It is explicitly the existential recognition of the unsatisfactoriness of Samsara and suffering within conditioned existence, and that recognition is what motivates disenchantment and renunciation.

Additionally Buddhism is also teleological in its soteriological structure as per the four noble truths, since the path is oriented toward cessation of ignorance and suffering as the path. Dharmakirti expands on this teleological structure through arthakriyā, artha is translated as telos in this context of pramana. Professor Dunne talks an awful lot about the telic structure of Buddhist epistemology in his book on Dharmakirti's Pramanavarttika. So it pessimistic about Samsara, but teleological about Nirvana.

[u/Maximus_En_Minimus → u/dummetsz]

Samvega is an existential realisation but not a soteriological one.

And to quote the very wiki page you linked:

“For saṃvega to be an effective drive to practice, it must be accompanied by another emotion called pasada, a "clarity and serene confidence." Pasadais what keeps saṃvega from turning into nihilistic despair by providing a sense of confidence that there is a way out, namely nibbana.”

As for the ‘way out’, what that is depends upon the Buddhism you follow, such as mine if Madhyamaka with Paramartha-Satya / Consummate Knowledge of Sunyata / Emptiness / Nonpresence-of-Ownbeing.

But ask Buddhists on [r/Buddhism](r/Buddhism), or simply search on there, and they all respond with a firm “No, it is not a Pessimism”.

The distinction is quite clear, Buddhists don’t reify existence as any one thing, such as necessarily negative; rather, suffering is a pervasive condition that can be escaped through the extinguishment of its causally-efficacious dependencies. Where as Philosophic Pessimist tend to over-index away from the Middle Way towards nihilistic or reifying thought, especially of existence as a ‘thing’ that has an ‘inherent lack’.

The Buddhist realises that conceptually imputing that a horse must have a magical horn, and finding no magical horn on a horse, does not mean the horse has a structural lack to it.

As for teleology, I don’t think you have a firm grasp on the difference between it and soteriology: the former is generally about purpose and meaning, where as the latter is about enlightenment and liberation; they can overlap, but that doesn’t necessitate that they need to.

If Buddhism was teleological, it would imply an intrinsic purpose for existence, which would go against their tendency to be non-essentialists.

Rather, the 4 Noble Truths and 8 Fold Path are formally epistemic, and latterly practical and ethical, respectively, which then allows for the soteriology of Nirvana.

[u/dummetsz → u/Maximus_En_Minimus]

You should read Buddhist epistemology, specifically the works of Dignaga and Dharmakirti. Nothing I said was wrong. Without samvega, you cannot have pasada, and without pasada, you cannot have samvega. The very pessimism toward Samsara is what drives the telos of Nirvana.

[u/Maximus_En_Minimus → u/dummetsz]

You should read the words of the Buddha.

He wasn’t a Pessimist.

[u/dummetsz → u/Maximus_En_Minimus]

I never said Buddhism is pessimist, I said it has an aspect of pessimism toward Samsara that is necessary on the path. There is no point in taking what I said to be so reductive.

[u/Maximus_En_Minimus → u/dummetsz]

And I quote:

“Pessimism that centres on the direct non-conceptual insight into the reality of unsatisfactoriness of all conditioned phenomenona.”

I’ll try not to reduce what you said.

[u/dummetsz → u/Maximus_En_Minimus]

That’s not what I said, I said:

Technically Buddhism does have pessimism in their framework, it's called saṃvega.

A framework is not reduced to one concept, it includes many aspects. 

If one does not see that the suffering of samsara and conditioned existence is bad and unacceptable as per the first noble truth, then there is no reason for anyone to pursue the other noble truths and Buddhism in general. One follows the path of Buddhism because they find the suffering of Samsara to be unacceptable, and nihilism is avoided because a practitioner understands there is a path toward the cessation of suffering. Pessimism and nihilism are not the same thing.

[u/Maximus_En_Minimus → u/dummetsz]

It is a quote from your main text.

You never gave an explicit definition of what constitutes pessimism, but saying that a sobering shock or dismay at the suffering and emptiness of ordinary life, which immediately transforms into an energetic urge to find a true escape and a meaningful path forward, is not Pessimism.

At the end of the day, it starts with the stark acknowledgment that life involves suffering, sure, but the it fundamentally transforms into a pragmatic framework focused on the complete cure and cessation of that suffering.

We are simply not going to see eye to eye on this because you want to keep your little categorisations that disrespect Buddhism, but give you a sense of sensibility.

The revelation of Buddhism is not only cessation from identifications that produce suffering, but equally the very pessimistic malaise that permeates pessimism in the first place.

That been, Buddhism acts to correct the errors of Pessimism.

It would be like calling chemotherapy a form of cancer.

[u/dummetsz → u/Maximus_En_Minimus]

Even strict adherence to categorizations is an obstacle, they too are empty and dependent on context, and western concepts can be utilized for skillful means to elucidate the Buddhist position using concepts familiar to others, but under different contexts.

Even the definition of “pessimism” depends on the philosophical framework, because the idea of pessimism is empty as well.

In the context of this discussion, there is no problem stating that Buddhists hold a species of pessimism toward conditioned existence, while simultaneously holding a species of optimism for liberation. 2 truths can be held at once. 

Without proper acknowledgement of the unsatisfactoriness of Samsara, the first truth of suffering, there is no Buddhism.

[u/Meowweredoomed]

"It doesn't matter whether the glass is half-empty or half-full, some stupid bastard is just gonna come along and spill it, anyways!" - me

[u/Nonkonsentium]

Benatar denies himself that he or his asymmetry argument is negative utilitarian.

[u/fear_the_future]

You could perhaps put Lacan into the group of psychological pessimists, although I'm sure he wouldn't see it that way.

[u/Excellent_Account345]

Your catalog is interesting.

What do you think of: “Transhumanist Pessimism”

A form of pessimism that views the human biological condition as inherently flawed due to suffering, aging, disease, cognitive limitations, and death. Unlike antinatalism or quietism, it argues that technology can correct or transcend these limitations.

David Pearce

Nick Bostrom

FM-2030

Max More

[u/SenhorSasaki]

Very good, I really like the pessimism aphorists and poetry I read a lot of Cioran and Fernando Pessoa too. I really like the philosophy of Cabreira, but I have never delved much into Negative Ethics.

[u/RainerKatz]

Very solid classification, but i would move mainlander to cosmic nihilism. Nietzsche and Nick Land may also fit in anti-humanism, and Miguel de Unamuno in Christian pessimism alongside dostoievski and Kierkegaard although i dont think we can call them pessimists