Message from @Existence is identity

Discord ID: 522504522514432039


2018-12-12 19:58:57 UTC  

Trump vs putin o.o

2018-12-12 19:59:04 UTC  

Let me be clearer

2018-12-12 19:59:43 UTC  

Hedonism is the doctrine which holds that the good is whatever gives you pleasure and, therefore, pleasure is the standard of morality. Objectivism holds that the good must be defined by a rational standard of value, that pleasure is not a first cause, but only a consequence, that only the pleasure which proceeds from a rational value judgment can be regarded as moral, that pleasure, as such, is not a guide to action nor a standard of morality. To say that pleasure should be the standard of morality simply means that whichever values you happen to have chosen, consciously or subconsciously, rationally or irrationally, are right and moral. This means that you are to be guided by chance feelings, emotions and whims, not by your mind. My philosophy is the opposite of hedonism. I hold that one cannot achieve happiness by random, arbitrary or subjective means. One can achieve happiness only on the basis of rational values. By rational values, I do not mean anything that a man may arbitrarily or blindly declare to be rational. It is the province of morality, of the science of ethics, to define for men what is a rational standard and what are the rational values to pursue.

2018-12-12 20:01:20 UTC  

I disagree that hedonism is not based on rationality. The goal is pleasure, but the calculations of what leads to pleasure is a rational excercise

2018-12-12 20:01:37 UTC  

That leads to contradictions

2018-12-12 20:01:41 UTC  

how so?

2018-12-12 20:02:11 UTC  

As man has now way to judge what leads to pleasure and how to sustain or pursue

2018-12-12 20:02:23 UTC  

As the philosophy defines none of these

2018-12-12 20:02:43 UTC  

and how is that a problem?

2018-12-12 20:02:56 UTC  

espacialy the defining part

2018-12-12 20:02:59 UTC  

How is it not?

2018-12-12 20:03:46 UTC  

what is the opposite of hedonism?

2018-12-12 20:03:56 UTC  

In practice, men have no way of obeying the tenets of hedonism, except by taking their already formed feelings—their desires and aversions, their loves and fears—as the given, as irreducible primaries the satisfaction of which is the purpose of morality, regardless of whether the value-judgments that caused these feelings are rational or irrational, consistent or contradictory, consonant with reality or in flagrant defiance of it.

2018-12-12 20:04:31 UTC  

@AHeroQuest Stoicism

2018-12-12 20:05:02 UTC  

Dionysus vs. Apollo

2018-12-12 20:05:07 UTC  

as for judging, yeah you can judge what will lead to pleasure and what will lead to pain. For example, if you make the decission to get a flu shot. Its some minor pain, maybe minor symptoms, it then depends on the likelyhood of otherwise getting the flu wether thats sensible. Lets just put numbers on it for simplicity. Getting the flue on average leads to 10 pain while the flu shot leads on average to 1 pain. In that case you should get the shot if there is a chance >10% of getting the flue

2018-12-12 20:05:33 UTC  

Except the philosophy doesnt tell you how

2018-12-12 20:05:39 UTC  

@Existence is identity i have no idea how feelings can be contradictory

2018-12-12 20:05:46 UTC  

It doesnt hold reason as a standard or tell you which is the good

2018-12-12 20:06:11 UTC  

i have no idea what you robjection is really

2018-12-12 20:06:25 UTC  

@Redneo Well it the context of long term pleasure me shooting some veins is quite a contradiction

2018-12-12 20:06:33 UTC  

I would think atleast

2018-12-12 20:06:40 UTC  

Lmao

2018-12-12 20:06:48 UTC  

feelings can hardly be contradictory

2018-12-12 20:07:04 UTC  

I just gave you an example lol

2018-12-12 20:07:14 UTC  

wait, how is it even possible to live life with only pleasure? or did I misread something?

2018-12-12 20:07:14 UTC  

yes it would be and as such NOT consistent with hedonism.

2018-12-12 20:07:42 UTC  

you should read about Apollonian and Dionysian philosophy

2018-12-12 20:07:46 UTC  

@Redneo Scroll up and reread

2018-12-12 20:07:52 UTC  

>netflix

2018-12-12 20:07:54 UTC  

@AHeroQuest maximisation of net-pleasure (pleasure minus pain. And yes, feeling like you have a purpose curing cancer or whatever IS pleasure)

2018-12-12 20:07:55 UTC  

😔

2018-12-12 20:08:09 UTC  


This is the fallacy inherent in hedonism—in any variant of ethical hedonism, personal or social, individual or collective. “Happiness” can properly be the purpose of ethics, but not the standard. The task of ethics is to define man’s proper code of values and thus to give him the means of achieving happiness. To declare, as the ethical hedonists do, that “the proper value is whatever gives you pleasure” is to declare that “the proper value is whatever you happen to value”—which is an act of intellectual and philosophical abdication, an act which merely proclaims the futility of ethics and invites all men to play it deuces wild.

2018-12-12 20:08:11 UTC  

@Existence is identity abusing drugs like that is NOT hedonistic

2018-12-12 20:08:55 UTC  

No objectivity defined in this half baked philosophy

2018-12-12 20:09:06 UTC  

okay im getting the vibe that you want strict commandments?

2018-12-12 20:09:15 UTC  

It never tells man how to obtain, pursue, and keep his values

2018-12-12 20:09:24 UTC  

aaaand?

2018-12-12 20:09:26 UTC  

thats GOOD

2018-12-12 20:09:32 UTC  

thats why it work