Message from @Existence is identity
Discord ID: 522504522514432039
Trump vs putin o.o
Let me be clearer
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.
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
That leads to contradictions
how so?
As man has now way to judge what leads to pleasure and how to sustain or pursue
As the philosophy defines none of these
and how is that a problem?
espacialy the defining part
How is it not?
what is the opposite of hedonism?
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.
@AHeroQuest Stoicism
Dionysus vs. Apollo
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
Except the philosophy doesnt tell you how
@Existence is identity i have no idea how feelings can be contradictory
It doesnt hold reason as a standard or tell you which is the good
i have no idea what you robjection is really
I would think atleast
Lmao
feelings can hardly be contradictory
I just gave you an example lol
wait, how is it even possible to live life with only pleasure? or did I misread something?
yes it would be and as such NOT consistent with hedonism.
you should read about Apollonian and Dionysian philosophy
@Redneo Scroll up and reread
>netflix
@AHeroQuest maximisation of net-pleasure (pleasure minus pain. And yes, feeling like you have a purpose curing cancer or whatever IS pleasure)
😔
¶
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.
@Existence is identity abusing drugs like that is NOT hedonistic
No objectivity defined in this half baked philosophy
okay im getting the vibe that you want strict commandments?
It never tells man how to obtain, pursue, and keep his values
aaaand?
thats GOOD
thats why it work