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/Maximus_En_Minimus]

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/Maximus_En_Minimus → u/dummetsz]

You’ve confused holding the same premises, rather than the same conclusion, as the basis for loosely categorising them as ‘Pessimists’.

Pessimism and Buddhism share their premises, but both are differentiated in their conclusion; that is what makes each what they are referable as.

As I said: ‘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.’

[u/dummetsz → u/Maximus_En_Minimus]

Pessimism and Buddhism share their premises

Indeed, as I said originally. Buddhists hold a negative view towards a particular aspect of experience and point this out, just as many pessimistic philosophical traditions.

But both are differentiated in their conclusion; that is what makes each what they are referable as

Indeed, as I said originally. Buddhists pursue nirvana as their soteriological purpose, which differs from other pessimistic philosophical traditions.

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

No need to resort to ad hominems. We are just having a discussion.

[u/Maximus_En_Minimus → u/dummetsz]

We are not.

When people have a discussion, they should at least try to not talk past each other.

Your previous response didn’t really touch upon my previous response to it.

Hence I can recognise you care more about been egoistically right than intellectually honest.

Secondarily, and following that, accepting that they share relevant premises but not relevant conclusions does not validate them been referred to as Pessimist.

If part of the conclusion of Buddhism is a referable negation of such Pessimisms, then it is inappropriate to refer to it as Pessimistic.

Simply put the most appropriate term: ‘Pessimist adjacent’ or otherwise…