Which philosophy on life/suffering is worse: FIRE or DARKNESS?

[Blue3]

Which philosophy on life/suffering is worse?

The Darkness Option:
Life=Suffering, therefore life is bad, all life must be ended
(someone with unlimited power who believed this would probably kill all life, including themselves, and likely destroy all reality too so life could never return... never again will another person enjoy childhood, no more love, no more potential for change or redemption, no more hope)

The Fire Option:
Life=Suffering, therefore suffering is good, embrace and spread pain
(someone with unlimited power who believed this would probably give everyone eternal life but make it so everyone is constantly tortured in new an unimaginable, twisted ways... human centipedes, castles made only of living people instead of bricks bound together by steel links impaled through their chests, setting people on fire whose skin will burn and eyes melt but can never die, etc. . . .  all while trying to convert people to embrace and like pain, to love pain, to enjoy being tortured, to worship pain, to embrace suffering as holiness)

[Antonio the Sixth]

Both are insane.

[Blue3]

Both are insane.

Of course.

But it's the logical conclusion of "life is suffering." Either both are good, or both are bad.

The sane option is to reject the premise, and correct it to "life contains joy and peace and suffering." But I've met a lot of people who insist on "life is suffering."

[Antonio the Sixth]

I'm not a huge fan of Schopenauer, but he's the proof that you can start from a "life is suffering" premise and not come to either conclusion.

[Blue3]

I'm not a huge fan of Schopenauer, but he's the proof that you can start from a "life is suffering" premise and not come to either conclusion.

That's not what I got from my brief read on him. He seems to see more in life than suffering.

[The Puppeteer]

The first option is worse because no one in the future will ever get the chance to be happy. At least with the second option the sadists and the masochists may still have a chance to be happy 😅

[bagelman]

The second is simple madness. The first is the will of the antichrist. Buddhism teaches that life is suffering, but provides a way out through enlightenment. To deprive other life from breaking the cycle of suffering instead creates oblivion. This provides victory to the antichrist, to evil and suffering if you prefer. Life finds a way, unless you cleanse the whole world of life humans will simply be reincarnated as lesser creature including microbes and be unable to break the cycle. If you believe in the afterlife as opposed to reincarnation than you are providing souls to the antichrist.

[Kingpoleon]

I'm not a huge fan of Schopenauer, but he's the proof that you can start from a "life is suffering" premise and not come to either conclusion.

German philosophers are very much hit (Leibniz) or miss (Hegel, Nietzche, etc.). The only known exception to this thus far is Wittgenstein, who is so unintelligible one cannot tell when he is a mad genius and when he is a stupid ignoramus.