Ascolo has so far raised a point which has not been challenged: that the mitigation of suffering in the natural-animalistic sense of need/lack and the first-order happiness that this produces is of the same type and quality as that second-order happiness which is attained in a state of enduring and sustaining sufferings (being in suffering so as to be in happiness, ie. states of first-order happiness) for the express purpose of making sure that happiness does not flee him. The idea that these types of happiness are fundmentally no different in quality or essence is at the heart of his philosophy, and we must address this issue if we are to understand him. Happiness of this higher type, second-order happiness, rests upon the circle of suffering and its mitigation (its redemption, or its going under), and we experience this ourselves: how often do we desire something greatly, and finally get it and there is a surge of brief happiness, and then - nothing. The desire turns to habit and a taking-for-granted, and the raw happiness which the striving-for and achieving of the desire created is gone, replaced by a passive background state of, once again, a taking-for-granted, a given, and now the removal of this given would generate its own sufferings.
Another points that needs to be addressed if we are to seriously understand and examine Ascolo’s philosophy is, namely, how does man redeem his second-order suffering and thus attain a permanent or at least basic minimum level of stable happiness? First-order suffering is redeemed by achieving the material or psychological conditions in one’s life such that the need/lack of that suffering vanishes - what then is the equivalent process by which second-order suffering (the suffering not from the lack of physical-animal needs but from the lack of happiness itself) is likewise mitigated and prevented? It would seem that the only way in which this second-order suffering can be redeemed is though attaining for oneself a constant or near-constant state of happiness, a state of being in happiness itself - being happy is the only way to prevent second-order suffering. One must ‘be happy’ in order to avoid second-order suffering – in fact, it doesnt matter where this happiness comes from! This is why love, sex, drugs, food, entertainment, philosophy, dreaming, playing games, writing, walking in nature, enduring conflict, achieving a creation and personal goal, all of the activities that men can find meaningful and pleasurable can generate this fundamental meaning for man precisely because they are creating within him a state of being of happiness. Why does the simple act of ‘being happy’ seem so totally meaningful and complete, underived, simple and perfect, and likewise why does it tend to vanish when we examine and question this happiness?- precisely because it is not the means by which the happiness is attained but the being happy which counts. It is a delicate balance on a knife’s edge to maintain a state of being in happiness in order to avoid second-order suffering while at the same time not redeeming one’s first-order sufferings (in the act of being in a state of second-order happiness) so much so that the first-order happiness which mitigates second-order suffering thus vanishes. Thus man’s life is a constant struggle to be happy, in any way he can, in order to avoid the deeper suffering of the lack of happiness itself.
Does this seem circular? Yes, because it is. This is the heart of man, a circularity or perhaps ‘vicious circle’ as was mentioned previously. This is why life seems both meaningful and meaningless, why happiness seems so easy and natural at times and then flees from us in the next moment.
The real question is, Is the second-order happiness which is generated by man’s habitual and constant scurryings to ‘be happy’ and thus avoid second-order suffering a fundamentally different type of happiness, different in quality and essence from basic first-order happiness? Or rather, Is the happiness of being happy (in one’s actions, thoughts, activities), is this state of being happy which is of a deeper and also wider berth and scope truly different in essence from the simple pleasures and fleeting joys that result from man’s mitigating the sufferings and lacks in his life? This is the most essential question here, if we are to get to the heart of Ascolo’s philosophy.
Ascolo tells us that no, this happiness is not different, it is the same. I disagree - but not because I think Ascolo is wrong; I disagree because I think his view is not the whole truth. I think that in most cases second-order happiness is basically no different in its passive, reactive and dependent circular nature as simple first-order happiness, but I think that a higher type or pure form of happiness can form itself into and of a new essence, what I will call innocence, a creative self-affirmative joyousness of man’s will, of his subsuming his consciousness to this will and boundless joy of creative self-affirmative expression. To invoke a metaphor I used to this effect, I think that the happiness which man can potentially (but rarely does) give birth to within his soul is a diamond forged from the coal and carbons of suffering and basic animal happiness (physical-mental pleasure), that through tremendous pressure and heat of friction man can create a totally new type and form of happiness which becomes self-affirmative and transfers over and transcends into a new form, a new essence in fact. This transfer takes place precisely at the moment where happiness ceases to be dependent upon suffering or first-order happiness (pleasure) - when ‘happiness’ (the human will) escapes the cycle of suffering/redemption. – happiness freed for its own sake, affirming itself in itself and innocent of suffering (but this does not mean ignorant of it); an essentially-human-creative willing and boundless joy which eminates from the spirit of man in the form of a perfect diamond glittering brilliantly as it experiences the energies of the world around it, a diamond which is made of carbon and coal and yet nonetheless is now something more, something beyond these, more than the sum of its parts - something new. I think that man can (but of course very, very rarely does) create for himself a different form of happiness - and this is where Ascolo and I part ways.
In all other ways except for this final moment of transcendence, the moment where happiness attains a truly self-affirmative state, I agree with Ascolo’s views here. He is correct about happiness being a result of suffering, he is correct that man’s moralities and values (love, happiness, etc) are derived from suffering, they are functions of man’s sufferings, in a direct and absolutely dependent sense. He is mostly correct when he says that suffering is the only value: this is true, suffering is the only value, except for a genuine and truly affirmative joy and willing which is man’s highest calling, his eternal return, his Ubermensch.
I believe that the only form of existence which man might attain that is not a functionary of suffering is this higher-order happiness of the creative and boundless will, a truly affirmative state of being of the highest joy and will - this is what Nietzsche called the eternal return, true affirmation in an active sense, affirmation of the will for its own sake and thus the overcoming of all willings to nothingness and suffering. In this way and in this way only can man escape the circle of suffering. And it is a thing which most men never attain, but also I think that most of us do have some sort of basic “diamond-essence” within us, the barest beginnings of a purely human spirit, despite that we have not yet overcome ourselves and learned to love life: I think that the human spirit is a slow geologic process which is, slowly and with great pains and errors and going backwards and abortions, turning the coal of basic materialist and psychological suffering into a diamond, turning the reactive and denied into the affirmative, the passive into the active. I think Nietzsche sensed this as the destiny of man, as that distant future to which all of human history points, and I think he deals with it in his Zarathustra despite the fact that he does not come to terms with the ubiquity of suffering in the way that Ascolo does. But despite this error on his part, Nietzsche did intuit the heart of man, he came to know what it means to be man even if he did not fully rationalize his ideas and they remained somewhat in the realm of abstraction and psychology rather than transferring over into a truly rational philosophy and a new ground of philosophy.
So if we are going to question Ascolo’s philosophy here we need to actually address it, rather than skate around its edges, as has been done thus far. He has not ignored Jakob’s views on happiness and suffering as I have seen, because his philosophy is able to explain and incorporate these views within itself. In the sense that Jakob and I are (maybe) in agreement as to the essentially transformative and differential nature of the truly self-created affirmation of the will, in the sense that Nietzsche truly meant the eternal return, there we part ways with you Ascolo. . . . but the discussion is not arrested at this point, because it is still a question up in the air as to whether or not this new happiness, this being of boundless creative joy and self-affirmative will to which I and NIetzsche refer is in fact actually of a different nature than all else in life and existence which is of the ‘vicious circle’ of suffering and its redemption. Can man truly esteem in such a way as to escape this circle? Ascolo thinks not (or rather he seems to think that the ubiquity of suffering is the only value and that the escape into new free spaces outside of man’s moralism and deceit is not a new valuation, not an affirmative overcoming in the way that Nietzsche means when he speaks of the eternal return), but I think yes, I think man can create a new type of happiness, a boundless joy of the self-affirmative will - I think that man can escape the circle of suffering/redemption, whereas Ascolo things not so much that we cannot escape it but that “escaping” it has no meaning at all, because it is all that there is and ever can be - and yet I admit that I cannot as rationally and clearly as him formulate my logic. This is the task I have been working on, and continue to work on. My intuition, my reason and my logic tell me that this eternal return, that the entirety of the beautiful essence of the Zarathustra is a real, tangible state, a fundamental Difference and a new Beginning for man, a ‘first-movement’, but I also admit that I have not lived this philosophy in the same personal manner as Ascolo has lived his, and thus in that sense I cannot and have no right to or means by which to critique his philosophy. I have experienced the depth of Zarathustra and the return in my soul, I have attained to vast heights of reason and intuition and sublime happiness, I have justified and derived this philosophy, what I would call the true and often-misunderstood (even by himself) philosophy of Nietzsche - but I have not yet lived it, I have not fought it with tooth and nail for my very existence, I have not been born of it - I have not carried my ashes to the mountaintop. So is my intuition regarding the eternal return and the truly differential nature of this state of being truly accurate? I believe that it is. And I continue to dive within this and within myself to find the answer. I am still, as always, open to further knowledge and understanding. I dont think I have it all right yet, I dont think Ive figured it all out - but I do think, I know, that I am on the right path in that direction.
But my personal reservations and intuitions in no way infringe upon Ascolo’s philosophy here - what he has said is correct. Thus far no one here has truly encountered him point-for-point and refuted his reason. All attempts so far have been half-attempts, half-contacts that miss some essential point and logic. I have tried my best to understand and formulate his position, and I can find no fault with it save for its ultimate conclusion, that there is no value other than suffering - I consider this correct in 99.999%+ of all cases, but A) I also do not derive any sort of “depression” or “hopelessness” from accepting this fact (and neither does Ascolo - but likely he does not because he has lived and overcome this idea whereas I have not yet faced it head-on), and B) I still hold to my intuitive reason and to my ‘highest hope’ and ‘most noble value’, as Zarathustra writes. To this effect, to how I truly conceive of this distinction here, see in Nietzsche’s Zarathustra ‘On the Tree on the Mountainside’ and ‘On the Way of the Creator’.
In all cases, this has been a most interesting discussion topic. I would be totally surprised that this entire forum and website has not revolved around this issue and topic herein discussed, if I did not already know the true essence of this website and of most who pose and flutter around here. All in all, though, I have to extend deep-felt thanks to both Ascolo and Jakob for your exchanges and discussions and ideas. You have contributed much here that I am grateful for - rare does a gem such as this thread has (ironically, considering its beginning) turned into surface on this website, or anywhere else in philosophy, for that matter.
*Ascolo or Jakob I appologize if I have either misrepresented or underrepresented your views here.