Generalized label: Classical Conservative liberal
Form of government: Democracy led by an enlightened ruler.
Form of economy: Regulated capitalism
Abortion: Opposed, with exceptions for rape, incest, as well as if BOTH partners in a committed relationship agree. Definitely opposed to abortion that results from reckless sexual behavior.
Gay marriage: Opposed (not highly though) to religious marriage, okay with civil.
Death penalty: Opposed.
Euthanasia: Opposed, except in terminal illness circumstances at the request of the patient. If the patient cannot request, family cannot take decision for them.
Campaign finance: No donations from the rich (top 5%), or from top 1000 companies allowed.
Surveillance: Yes, but with transparency.
Health care: Universal health care.
Immigration: Against illegal immigration and for making legal immigration easier
Education: Higher education should be free, student loans forgiven, philosophy, religion and morality classes mandatory in both high schools and universities :) In morality classes, students should be assessed based on their observable behavior while on campus. No one should be allowed to get a diploma without passing the morality class.
Environmental policy: Greater subsidies for renewables and protection of endangered species and unique biomes
Gun policy: For gun ownership.
Drug policy: Outlaw most drugs.
Foreign policy: In favor of military intervention against inhuman threats.

So it's not a date until you have sex? What was it before the moment of penetration? Just a friendly encounter? — Hanover

In a Venn diagram, dating is the intersection between the friendship circle, and the relationship/marriage circle. — Agustino

This wasn't very well phrased from me, my apologies. I mean to say that there's no abrupt change between the two (friendship and relationship), but rather a gradual transition which passes through dating. I don't really consider it a relationship until sex is also included; it would seem strange, at least to me, taking into account the culture of the place where I've grown up, for it to be considered a relationship prior to sexual contact. But I agree by and large - this view is something that can differ between people, there's no intellectual argument for it one way or another.

My point is that there is enough variation in acceptable behavior that someone doesn't have to model themselves after you in order to be normal. — Hanover

True, but some things can be determined to be wrong. In this case promiscuity can be determined to be deleterious, both to the participants themselves, as well as to the society at large. If you would like I can provide a detailed argument for why this is so (I have just recently in fact provided the argument but only for social damage in a response to BC on the other forum http://forums.philosophyforums.com/comments.php?id=74551&findpost=1368094#post1368094
also post 29 in the same thread. )

I'd also say that your views seem to be based upon intellectual notions of virtue and righteousness as opposed to any real life analysis. — Hanover

My ideas of virtue and righteousness are based on real life. In fact most people on Earth share those values by and large - if not in practice, then at least as an ideal.

We are talking about human behaviors and relationships which are inherently emotionally based, which means that any analysis that simply declares a behavior inappropriate based upon some logical reason will be incomplete (and really naïve sounding). — Hanover

Yes but claiming that emotionally based behavior cannot be critiqued, and that right and wrong cannot be determined in emotionally based behavior is simply not true. Beating up your brother because he stole the keys to your car may be an emotionally based behavior, but that doesn't excuse it from being criticized, and being analyzed to determine whether it is right or wrong. Same for promiscuous sex.

Of course, they really never "dated" because they didn't have sex before they were married. — Hanover

This was addressed before in this current post.

Sort of like telling me that I really didn't enjoy that glass of wine because I didn't comprehend the nuances of a glass of wine well drunk, despite my assurances that I did. We're now into refined fucking that only the sophisticated can truly appreciate I guess. — Hanover

No it's not like this at all. It's about an activity that is bringing you some harm, and yet you refuse to perceive the harm. Just like taking drugs does harm to a drug addict, and yet they often fail to perceive the harm, and overly emphasize the good feelings they get from it.

Your other comment here is striking for how incorrect it is. Sex can dramatically change a relationship, either improving it by bringing the people closer together or by destroying a friendship. If you don't believe me, go screw your best friend and see if everything is the same the next morning. The point being that sex is an important component of a relationship, but obviously one of many. — Hanover

Ok, I agree to this by and large. However, I disagree that screwing my best friend will necessarily change our relationship, anymore than taking her on a fantastic boat ride would - it depends on the expectations which each has. There's many shared experiences which can change a relationship, and sex is just one of them.

Your references to celibacy conjure thoughts of lifelong abstinence for spiritual reasons, but then you go on to say that really you're only advocating abstinence before marriage — Hanover

I think I said this in my very first post, sorry if this wasn't clear enough.

I'm not sure why celibates who are just waiting for marriage cannot have meaningful friendships or even romantic non-sexual relationships. Those who preach abstinence do not mean that you can't date anyone. They just don't want you to have sex until marriage. — Hanover

Dating without sex doesn't seem to make much sense. I would just call that a form of friendship, albeit different than what is usually understood by friendship. And yes, by marriage I mean a strong committed relationship, not necessarily something approved of by a priest. I do think that friendship comes first, dating is merely a transition from just friendship, to something more. In a Venn diagram, dating is the intersection between the friendship circle, and the relationship/marriage circle.

I don't favor promiscuity, but your simple declaration that those who are out looking for meaningless sex are somehow flawed is nothing but a moral judgment by you as to what sex ought to represent to people. There are those who don't live by that standard and go happily on their way, which simply means that your advice may not be useful to a segment of the population. — Hanover

I'm afraid this doesn't follow. A drug addict may happily go his way and ignore my advice, but that is not an argument against my advice being useful. My advice is useful if he had only listened to it. Arguments against my advice being useful are intellectual, his not being helped by my advice is a problem of will; he makes a free choice to ignore it.

I can only imagine the surprise of those who thought they were truly enjoying sex, but are now learning they weren't. — Hanover

Well perhaps they should think about it themselves, and ponder it carefully, and see afterwards if in fact they do not come to this same conclusion.

It's not shameful as much as it might be embarrassing and futile. Although I am far from being one to offer advice on how to score with the ladies, sprinting up to them asking for sexual release might not be effective. — Hanover

You understand what I meant though - of course there are "socially acceptable" (read, effective) ways of sprinting up to them and asking for sexual release, obviously not directly.

They are getting symptom relief — Bitter Crank

Symptom relief, a temporary forgetfulness, of their low self-esteem.

I've come across people with some quite odd preferences, people whose impulse control was somewhat deficient, criminal predators, petty crooks, hustlers, prostitutes, guys that spent too much time thinking about sex, people who spent way too much time in bars drinking, and so on -- but maybe only three hypersexuals since 1968. There just aren't that many people out there who have THAT MUCH sex. They wish, but no. — Bitter Crank

Yes I agree that there's not that many, that's why I stated that most people aren't like this. Of course then there's the danger of falling to the other side - some people, despite having someone nearby who is a good match for them, refuse to engage in any sexual behaviour. That is a different fear, a fear of commitment, intimacy, dependence; a fear of being open and truly relating to the other person, a fear of loss of autonomy. This is a symptom of too much self-concern, and too much self-love; narcissism; or again, a fear of inadequacy, and a fear of vulnerability. There's also the people who only want sex with strangers - presumably also this latter fear of vulnerability, combined with a fear of responsibility. But a strong man is neither of those two extremes, but a balanced middle. He will not be afraid to pounce, but only if the circumstances are right.

Really? It doesn't strike me as neurotic at all. (We seem not to look at the world in the same way.) — Bitter Crank

Why not? Compulsive behavior, and dependence are not the traits of a healthy mind.

Humans are obligate interpersonal actors. We have no choice but to interact with others to survive, to be nurtured, to be taught, to learn, to explore, to give, receive, to love, to have sex that is more than masturbation. We are not complete isolates unto ourselves. We are porous, and into and out of us flows all the interactions that make up a life. — Bitter Crank

I didn't argue we are complete islands. On the contrary, we should relate to each other as much as possible given that we do this rightly - virtuously. But this relating should not be at the loss of our dignity. Depending on someone for sexual needs is a loss of dignity, unless one has a medical condition preventing this from being otherwise. This doesn't mean that one shouldn't have sex - it means that one should be able to live without it if they must. Likewise, if someone depends on others for their food, this is a loss of dignity, unless they have a medical problem (for example a handicap), they are children and cannot work, they are too old to work, or otherwise there is some other external force preventing them from working. It is shameful, contrary to the nature of each person which is to fulfill their potential for freedom.

A man whose life depends on sex (meaning they cannot live without sex [will go insane, will become violent, will rape etc. etc.]) is a man who has not reached his full potential for freedom and independence. Only when one has reached their potential for freedom and independence can they truly enjoy sex - not as slaves running after something without which they cannot live - but as dignified human beings, sharing their freedom with one another out of a free choice to do so. People who are compelled to do so by their lust are not free. And such compulsion leads to a loss of self-esteem, as most sex addicts recognize, and not to well-being. What leads to well-being is freedom, independence, a coming together shaped by choice, and not by compulsion. That is the real freedom. Running to the closest woman because I cannot control my sexual impulse is shameful - a parade of my un-freedom, masking itself as a free decision, when it is no free decision, but a forced decision. What difference is there between someone putting a gun to my head and saying "have sex, now, with anyone!" and my desire forcing me to go out to look for anyone around to have sex with? It is one thing if I freely decide I will have sex - not forced into it by any sort of weakness in myself, but rather a decision born of my freedom and love for someone else.

I think the Roman Catholic priesthood is a an excellent demonstration of how toxic celibacy can be — Bitter Crank

Yes indeed. Celibacy is good only if a good and virtuous partner fit for one is unavailable. The Greek Orthodox priests, on the other hand, are free to marry.

There are few avenues of validation more satisfying than the sexual. — Bitter Crank

This sounds quite neurotic. Life is much richer than mere sexual experience, and a man who has experienced sex and nothing else has missed a lot of life. Furthermore, sex should not be a means for validation and self-worth. At least it's not in a person who is well balanced. Why would any rational person seek validation in something that is, in the end, at the mercy of other people? One would have to be a fool - a perpetual slave to other people, in order to get what (s)he needs.

regular validation and affirmation — Bitter Crank

Sex is not a validation or an affirmation. Again, this is a neurotic point of view. We start from the assumption that someone needs validation to begin with, and second of all that such validation should be obtained from sex. This is questionable on multiple grounds. First, someone should not need external validation. Secondly, validation obtained from goods which cannot be obtained without the approval and assent of others is a form of slavery to the giver of goods. Not something desirable.

It's not just "getting off". — Bitter Crank

That's not what most sex addicts describe. They describe feeling quite empty after the act.

Good sex, whether in a long term relationship or with a stranger whose first name one knows not, and whom one will probably never see again, is affirming to one's sense of personal self-worth — Bitter Crank

If one needs sex to affirm one's sense of self-worth then that person is to be pitied, for they shall suffer much. This sounds more like a nymphomaniac than a normal, well-balanced person. You should perhaps be aware that nymphomania is classed as a psychological illness, which is to be treated - not something to be desired. Nymphomaniacs are addicted to sex as they get their sense of self-worth from it.

But just going about an ordinaryl life, but deciding to practice celibacy, just doesn't make sense to me. What would an accountant working for General motors and living in suburban Detroit, who doesn't belong to any organizations except GM, get out of deciding to never have sex again? A promotion? I don't see why that would happen. New friends? I guess the celibacy support group might be a friend-finding opportunity. — Bitter Crank

Indeed I agree. But at the same time I think the accountant would be better off being celibate until he can find a stable partner, who fits him in intellectual capabilities, virtue and values than engage in casual sex with strangers. Better as this gives him the opportunity to develop self control, build a self-worth that is not dependent on other people (sex means other people), learn how to live alone, and explore, understand and develop himself much more. In fact, in most places around the world, people try to live like this, and those that can't, at least aspire to live so.

Thanks BC, these facts are very interesting. Was not previously aware of many of these before! Also, I stand corrected regarding the 50%.

As for your study, this is supporting EXACTLY what I am saying. "Stressful relationship could increase the risk of heart attacks by 34%". The other causes of married men living better lives happen when they are successful marriages, which is exactly what I'm saying. A successful marriage is better than celibacy, which in turn is better than a failed marriage. People ought to use their heads more often. It's better to be celibate, take good care of yourself, eat well, exercise, and avoid those factors which actually cause worse health for unmarried men, than to get married just for the sake of it to the wrong person.

This strikes me as utter nonsense, to suggest that because most marriages are imperfect, we should all live in chastity. — Hanover

It's not suggesting that, it's suggesting that people should work on improving themselves so that most marriages stop being disastrous (50% divorce rate in US, don't forget ;) ).

The truth is that all relationships (sexual or not) are imperfect. If I'm already not having sex with all my friends, what do I do to improve those relationships if the panacea is to stop having sex with them? I'm already taking a healthy dose of the don't-fuck-my-friends medicine, so why do I still have occasional tiffs with them? — Hanover

A relationship cannot be improved by not having sex. If the relationship isn't good, then it's not good, full stop. And it's not good because of character defects (in one or both partners), not because of the presence or lack of sex.

I wonder as I read these posts if there is some rationalization going on here. Do you guys really think that celibacy is the cure to your various physical and emotional challenges or is that just a comforting thing to tell yourself because you aren't getting laid? — Hanover

Celibacy is developing the inner strength to: 1. refuse to take that which isn't worth your time (refuse to engage in sexual relationships with people who will hurt themselves and hurt you), and 2. learn to live alone (because sometimes in life you may actually have to), and 3. learn to be patient and wait so that you may catch gold. Simple. And it's not my philosophy, it's the philosophy that has existed for reasonable men and women since Aristotle. A diamond cannot be found without patience, perseverance, learning to say no, and temperance and prudence. All of the former are virtues.
So my point is aim to get married. Keep looking for virtuous people. Stay in their company, and ultimately marry one. But do not marry just because you need to have sex. Do not marry just because other people are. Do not marry the wrong person because you cannot find better. Be of good courage and persevere in your search. And this is all greatly facilitated by celibacy until then.

And yes, "getting laid" in the right circumstances is good - but "getting laid" in the wrong circumstances will do you more harm than good. You should be aware that most people on the planet know that. Also, most people on the planet are not willing to do anything to get laid. The only ones who are willing to do anything to get laid are desperate people who cannot control or manage their own urges (a character defect by the way - a defect which will certainly not be solved by "getting laid").

Why would you be opposed to consumating it?

I don't know about that. It seems to me that Catholic priests and monks, Buddhist monks, and Hindu ascetics are pretty fit, free of many illnesses common to the general public, and usually live extremely long lives. So it seems rather a boon than a detriment to one's health. — Thorongil

I don't know if it necessarily follows. First, many priests do, for example, release sexual tension via masturbation. Also I'm not sure if it's the abstinence from sexual intercourse that leads to better health, or RATHER the avoidance of the many conflicts and stress that often result from sexual relationships. My hypothesis is that a strong relationship, when both partners care deeply about each other, are loyal and faithful, are of similar intellectual capabilities, etc. is the best for one's health. But, such a relationship is exceedingly rare. So the next best alternative would be celibacy. But naturally - it follows from all this that one should cultivate the ability to be celibate.

Just curious Thorongil, on a side point, if you don't mind. When you say you are celibate, do you mean you avoid sexual pleasure completely, or you merely avoid sexual intercourse with others?

Nope, this is false. We don't have a reason to expect that this is the case, but you are right that we do expect that it is the case. Why do we expect it if we don't have a reason? Because our beliefs are not based on reason in the first place - they are based on appearances, on habit, and on the way our mind functions.

I disagree, it is perfectly reasonable, since all known human experience is of a world overwhelmingly invariant, to expect the future to be along more or less similar lines to the past; the sun will most likely continue to rise in the morning, species will continue to become extinct, people will continue to live, on average between 70 and 90 years ( or their lifespans may continue to increase if the understanding of factors affecting human health continues to increase) and people will continue to be born and die unless there is some devastating event, and so on. — John

How do we know that what held up in the past will hold up in the future? Let's suppose I try to justify some principle of uniformity of nature; how will I go about it?

1. Newton's law of motion held from 1600AD-2016AD.
2. The past will be like the future.
3. Therefore Newton's law of motion will hold in the future too.

This works. But notice that premise two is the very principle of uniformity. So how shall I justify it?

1. The past has always been like the future.
2. The past will continue to have the same relationship with the future.
3. Therefore the past will continue to be like the future.

Notice I smuggled it in again when I tried to justify it. I cannot justify that the future will be like the past without falling into circular reasoning. And furthermore, how could I know empirically that the future will be like the past? All that I can know is that the present is like the past.

I grant you that I do believe that the future will also be like the past. But this is not based on some reasoning; it is merely the way my mind works. My mind presumes that the past is a reasonable guide to the future; but there is no reason for this presumption. It's just the way my mind works. When it sees the constant conjunction of things, it is inclined to associate the presence of one with the presence of the other. All we can say is that it SEEMS (to whom - to ME!) like the future will be like the past. This is believed out of habit, not out of reason. I have no reason to affirm a matter of fact: that it will really be like this. It is sufficient and truthful if I say that I believe it, and stop there.

Yes but it is not reasonable to expect the future to be like the past just because that has been the case up until now.

As for having a deductively valid reason - the reason is that deduction is the only process which guarantees an answer.

What makes you think induction is reasonable?

So, the total for oil would be 13.3%, which would put it in second place. And then there is the issue of trends in consumption. The demand for oil might be expected to rise faster than the demand for coal in coming decades unless substitutes are found and promoted, I surmise (though I am not very knowledgeable about that). — Pierre-Normand

Refining and consumption of oil also overlap, which must be taken into account. Yes you are right - oil was fourth, even in my view. I've analysed the statistics awhile ago, but cannot find my report. So yes, it is important. Just nowhere near as significant as it's often made out to be. Oil is important - but it's importance is as a strategic political resource MUCH more than as an environmental concern. Coal burning on the other hand is the prime environmental concern that we should be having. China is burning most of the world's coal as well.

The demand for oil might be expected to rise faster than the demand for coal in coming decades unless substitutes are found and promoted, I surmise (though I am not very knowledgeable about that). — Pierre-Normand

I have not seen much evidence for this. There's quite an opposite effect in fact. Demand for coal is growing faster than demand of oil, since it's a cheaper resource and developing (not developed) countries are more likely to exploit it. Check China out. At least it has been until recently when oil prices have fallen quite a bit.

Also - having worked in related fields. 60% of the world's CO2 is from coal energy production, 11% from natural gas energy production and 8% from cement. These are the three biggest. As you see - oil isn't even there, but yet it gets so much attention. Cement gets virtually no attention, even though it's in top 3 by industry. Coal gets far too little attention.

So I think that if you argue against the practice of the Koch brothers when it comes to selling waste, then you should really be arguing against the practices of entire industries. Cement manufacturing (which I briefly worked in) uses waste fuels (used tyres), and even waste products such as ground-granulated blastfurnace slag (which is a waste product of the manufacturing of steel) in the production of cement. Because most of the CO2 emitted is assigned to steel - 1000+ kg CO2 per ton steel produced; ground-granulated blastfurnace slag has a much lower embodied CO2 50kg/ton produced. Thus more sustainable cement is produced using ground-granulated blastfurnace slag in higher proportions than the alternative and traditional portland cement (950kg CO2/ ton). Does this feel like a cheat? Maybe - but we're producing steel anyway, might just as well make use of the waste, instead of burn more additional fuel and release much more noxious gases in the atmosphere if we don't.

So as you can see - the discussion is more complicated than was initially suggested. (I might as well add that many journalists don't know what they're talking about and just want to make headlines rather than research adequately into such matters).

I will say that because people have died in the past, I believe that people will die in the future, but this is not a deductively valid reasoning, and induction itself is not rationally valid - I use it because it seems to be working at the moment.

Very interesting. If you ask me, yes they should be forced to obey some more environmentally friendly practices in their business. Also, there is quite a frequent policy in many different industries to use waste material as fuel, for sustainability reasons. Throwing it away is seen as less sustainable because it is a waste of resources. But then you are right, that this will emit noxious gases into the atmosphere. But at the same time it's kind of better to use waste than to mine for more natural fuel (oil, gas, coal) don't you think?

Yes, and I showed that custom can be trusted because of experience, neither reason, nor blindly. Furthermore, Hume and I think we do not have any good reasons to believe that the future will be like the past, and you have not showed otherwise.

Yes - but thinking the future is like the past is not based on reason. Hence the acceptance of custom is not based on reason, as you yourself have just admitted.

I don't know enough about them to approve or disapprove. But from the text you have posted, after I eliminate the author's bias (ex aggressive capitalists and right-wing zealots, or authoritarian and brutal disciplinarian, etc.), there doesn't seem much to object to. Some people who had the means to make a lot of money by taking their father's business, go about and do it, and then use their money to protect certain interests they believe in in the government. In their place, I would've done the same probably. In fact, I find something to admire... the fact that they could do this and pull it off. Many would wish they could influence government, but do not know how to go about it.

Ask me and they're doing a great thing. Protecting private property :P

Experience. As Hume showed, it's not reasonable because it's not reasonable to expect that the future will be like the past just because the present has so far been like the past.

Indeed.

There can be an arbiter. Custom. ;)

Do you think we find a faith, or do we rather get trained in a faith? I think since faith is a way of life, then surely it is less about finding it, than about learning a certain way of relating to the world successfully.

Fideism cannot be blind because reason could not be applied to it even in principle. We can only talk about blindness in contexts where it can exist.

But if belief and faith are not based on argument, what is the point of complementing faith with arguments? What is the point of combatting faith with arguments? All this becomes nonsense.

Hume identified that the cause of our beliefs is habit - education, culture, language. Reason comes into play not in a vacuum, but in the presence of an already existing way of being (worldview, which contains many basic beliefs).

Belief in God cannot be disturbed by argument, because one does not believe because of arguments in the first place... How do you justify the presumption that belief is based on argument?

Is traditional philosophy bullshit? — darthbarracuda

Yes, if by traditional philosophy you understand the philosophy which gives reason an undue priority in the world, and makes an arbiter out of it.

that people commit crimes, hurt other people, kill (or worse), and they get away with it. They pay no price. Instead, they prosper from it. They become more powerful and insulated. — Mongrel

They don't always get away with it. Sometimes they get away with it, just like sometimes good people suffer. I think the suffering of good people is exacerbated in our age because mercy triumphs over justice too much - in other words, one is seen as being morally deficient if justice (punishing wrong-doing) becomes more important than forgiveness. This I think is wrong - there is no shame in strength, justice and power if they are used for good causes, and justice is a good cause. It is only those morally deficient people, who desire to do evil and hurt others, and who don't want their victims to have means of defence and retaliation, that promote forgiveness. For them, they want forgiveness to be a universal law, because they want to be forgiven - allowed to get away with doing evil.

Isn't this why parents teach their sons to belt the playground bully right in the nose? Because they know it works this way. — Mongrel

Yes. Violence and power can be used for good purposes. Beating up a bully is a good thing - and yes - it works. Hobbes was right.

If it has come home to you that this is true, what sense do you make of it? Is it in keeping with the way you've always seen the world? Or does it conflict with your habitual view? If so, do you make changes to your outlook? Or do you tuck it away and ignore it? — Mongrel

Yes it is in keeping with the way I've always seen the world. It doesn't conflict with my view. I do not tuck it away and ignore it. I seek to develop the strength and power required to defend myself and others I care about.

Why am I conscious? — Mongrel

It is pointless to ask a question whose answer and explication necessitates and presupposes that which you put into question. "Why am I conscious?" is a proxy for "why do I exist?" - but the question puts into question your very existence - but it is precisely this very existence which the supposed answer demands. So you are bound to cause an antinomy in asking the question - you come to the limits of language.

Very interesting post.

Both metaphysics and religion are matters of faith; they do not have truth-value but rather represent commitments - ways of being. Your short genealogy of metaphysics and religion is proof of exactly this. Schopenhauer's philosophy represents a way of being in the world. Christianity another. They are different in the practical commitments that they entail, and in the particular ways of relating to existence that they necessitate.

One does not choose a way of being based on reasons because a way of being is always already presupposed by any reasons whatsoever. One does not reason in a vacuum.

Because ways of being are a priori to reasons, it means, undeniably, as pointed out by Hume (later taken on by Hamann, Wittgenstein, Heidegger), that such ways of being are not amenable to rational criticism - rather the ways of being define what is taken to be rational criticism in the first place - they are the bedrock.

That the sun will rise up tomorrow is not a matter that can be determined rationally. It is a commitment - a faith. In-so-far as it is a faith, it has no truth-value, even though it relates to the empirical world - the proposition is neither true, nor false. It is your commitment - the sun will rise tomorrow, so I will go to sleep, wake up tomorrow, pull the curtains, and go out to enjoy the sun. That's what it means - the role it has in your language usage.

Narratives - religion, metaphysics, etc. - are prior to reason, and hence reason cannot question them, without putting itself into question - cartesian doubt - can't even get off the ground. It is a matter of aesthetic sensitivity, education, culture and language and the manner in which one desires to live that determines the choice of narrative each makes. But we all have a narrative - it is part of being a language-using animal.

Wittgenstein was smarter than Kant - Kant's Critique works, but it forgets that it only works if it has the very fine distinctions between synthetic a priori, analytic a priori, etc. But these distinctions are borrowed, and depend on language for their existence. By showing that language is prior to reason (and thus conditions reason itself), metaphysics is once again rendered a matter of faith.

You posted this document even on old PF. Stop discussing your philosophy and start living it.

Great points!

Consider that if pleasure is the only intrinsic good, as the hedonist claims, and one does not feel pleasure in the desire for the good, as the article claims is possible, then the hedonist is contradictorily obliged to abandon his desire and pursuit of the good — Thorongil

Only if the hedonist has such a desire for the good in the first place. Also it gets hard to wrestle with when someone has a desire for pleasure; the hedonist will argue that that all desires are in truth desires for pleasure. That some can desire something while finding it painful, would, in their minds, only signify that they have found a way to transform pain into pleasure, ie masochism.

But that pleasure can exist without desire - that in my mind is the key point. The hedonist argues that pleasure is best achieved (in fact, can only be achieved) via desire (one must pursue and satisfy one's desires to achieve pleasure), whereas Buddha argues for achieving pleasure sans desire - peace of mind, equanimity, "blowing out". So the hedonist is wrong in a twofold manner; namely he fails to see that pleasure cannot be achieved via desire, since desire is infinite; and he also fails to see that there is another kind of pleasure out there, namely the one that does not depend on one's will/desire, and this is a more lasting, eternal kind of pleasure.

Very interesting article btw, thanks! :)

Someone being interested in doing so is not a reason for them to happen. — TheWillowOfDarkness

I meant reasons not as moral justifications for them, but merely motives that can explain what they do even if they know it is wrong.