The ascetic, in virtue of his actions, is essentially telling the rest of the rabble that what they like to do is inadequate, insufficient, or not worthy of praise. The ascetic isn't just not-participating, they're outright rejecting what everyone else is doing. "Stealing their thunder", so to speak, by not appreciating what others are doing. — darthbarracuda

It isn't just asceticism that steals or attempts to steal thunder. It's the general structure of imperial personality. I'm (one of) the best. I think this haunts just about any public performance of what one regards as virtue.

As far as altruism goes, this "everyone else" is itself composed of a thousand varying asceticisms as well as a thousand varying proposed objects of ultimate concern. True, we can sort these compound, idiosyncratic prohibitions and objects of desire into a few bins. But look closely at a life and you'll find quite an unstable mess of thou shalts and thou shalt nots. An absolute asceticism like life-denial is going to stand out, but at the cost of looking irrelevant to anyone without living doubt about the value of their own life.

I'm (one of) the best. I think this haunts just about any public performance of what one regards as virtue. — Hoo

Agreed. It seems to me to be profoundly egotistical.

I think this is why I particularly am fond of Buddhism: it is an inner-worldly asceticism, better described as "Spartan" - maintain what you need to survive, refuse excess. It's not any of this wishy-washy transcendental other-worldlyness, which inevitably places attachment on the ascetic lifestyle to begin with.

But in general I think people like the idea of a transcendental escape more than they actually like putting this into practice. It's a way of pretending you're making progress, by identifying a goal that you'll "eventually" reach. When really what's going on is the procrastination of action.

Ascetic practices have historically been designed to achieve certain spiritual aims. Shakyamuni practiced asceticism almost to the point of starvation before realizing that such extreme measures are not the way, because they damage the body/ mind; rendering spiritual progress impossible.

I can't see how ascetic practices could be understood to be 'insulting" to others, though. The practice of moderate forms of ascetism, for example, eschewing the indulgence of momentary pleasures in order to achieve fuller future satisfactions, is commonplace in everyday life.

I think this is why I particularly am fond of Buddhism: it is an inner-worldly asceticism, better described as "Spartan" - maintain what you need to survive, refuse excess. It's not any of this wishy-washy transcendental other-worldlyness, which inevitably places attachment on the ascetic lifestyle to begin with. — darthbarracuda

I like what I know of it. I discovered this lately, and it reminds me of what I've read about Buddhism. The end (about the analyst) is especially good. I don't share this as if it's authoritative. As I see it, language discloses being. Anyway, I'm of the opinion that egoism is sublimated as it takes a look in the mirror and laughs at itself forgivingly ---and maybe becomes more like water than stone.

The master is the figure who leads and conducts. He is decisive and sure of himself in his role as master. In theoretical terms, he generates master signifiers, which consist of terms and slogans that represent his particular discipline.
...
The individual subject finds self-identity in the form of these signifiers, which serve as ideological rallying positions. At the extreme, the master is the one you will die for. Words like “God,” “country,” “freedom,” “free market,” “pro-choice,” and so forth are examples of such master signifiers.
............
The discourse of the university promotes knowledge and values on behalf of the master. The word university in this special sense includes far more than the actual university in the sense of college. Though acting on behalf of the master, the university pretends to be completely neutral and impersonal, as if merely carrying out its mission according to the basic facts and conditions of any given situation.
...................
The hysteric is engaged in radical doubt and questioning of his or her subjective position as dictated by the master. The hysteric is the alienated subject. She is divided and conflicted within herself between what she feels she is supposed to do and her resistance or failure to live up to what the order dictates. According to the discourses of the master and the university, the true subject should not be alienated and divided. One is supposed to conform easily and freely to the master discourse. Hysteria takes the form of resistance and protest, jealousy and rage, but also shame and sense of meaninglessness at one’s failure to live up to the ideals of the dominant discourse. In spite of her resistance, however, the hysteric is still in thrall to the demands of the master and university (Bracher, 123).

In Lacanian terms, all subjects are ultimately hysterics. The hysteric is the ultimate model of subjectivity. This gets back to the idea of split subject: no one escapes the condition of being split. The master is oblivious to this fact but is nevertheless just as “split” as anyone else. If anyone, the hystericized subject is the most aware that the emperor wears no clothes, that is, that the master is equally split. Still, the hysteric has not made the final step to act on that awareness, but remains subjected to the discourse of the master.

The analyst observes that the hysteric experiences subjection to the master only because she treats the master as a master. The analyst says that the master is such because people believe he is such. They grant him his authority. Equally, they can withdraw it. In purest form, the analyst represents a position that denies all acts of mastery, especially self-mastery. The analyst elicits hysteria from the subject in order to expose the subject’s state of subjection to the dominant order. The end of therapy arrives when the subject sees through the fantasy of subjection and discovers new possibilities. In this summary, however, I am not interested in the
clinical techniques of the analyst, which can be found in other readings. I prefer to regard the analyst in philosophical terms as occupying the stance of the critical intellectual who, according to Žižek, always maintains “a distance toward every reigning Master-Signifier,” thus always in order to “render visible [the] ‘produced,’ artificial, contingent character” of every Master-Signifier (TN, 2). Žižek says that “philosophy begins the moment we do not simply accept what exists as given (“It’s like that!”, “Law is law!”, etc.), but raise the question of how is what we encounter as actual also possible. What characterizes philosophy is this ‘step back’ from actuality to possibility ....” (Ibid.). The difference between actual and possible is such that whatever is actual or certain is only so because another possibility did not take place. Stepping back from the actual means looking at what might have been, though not in a wishful way as if to recover some lost past. It is to disbelieve that what is so is because it must be so. In this sense, the theory of the analyst is absolutely anti-fatalistic.

The analyst represents a different kind of knowledge than the master or university. The analyst’s knowledge is dialectical, which in simplest terms means that truth is dynamic and paradoxical. It is a knowledge which knows how to examine the surface of a master discourse and through its splits and fissures discover its unconscious. The analyst is a Daoist in the sense described by figures like Zhuangzi. The analyst occupies the position of the void that lies in all signifiers and at the back of all systems. The analyst as human being, of course, is no different from anyone else in being equally caught up in his or her own pathology of subjectivization. — http://kmcmahon.faculty.ku.edu//LacanZizeksum.html

If what the ascetic is doing is insulting, it still isn't objectionable in any significant sense. "This guy doesn't like hamburgers - I bet he thinks he's too good for them." So what?

More to the point, in a society of functional alcoholics, abstinence from alcohol might look "obnoxious." That doesn't mean it's a bad idea.

'Nobody can make you feel inferior without your permission' ~ Eleanor Roosevelt.

It is insulting in the same way that somebody listening to classical music is insulting - ie it can be interpreted as implying a message to all the pop-music-only listeners that 'I'm so much more sophisticated than you'.

However, if the classical music buff / ascetic doesn't say they are better than others then that interpretation is solely in the mind of the one who seeks to be offended, and the ascetic / buff cannot be held responsible for it.

I think that goes for many things that some people consider 'better', including morals. I listen to classical music because I like it. I don't eat junk food because I don't like it. I give to Oxfam because I feel impelled to do that. None of these are in any way claims of superiority. They are simply actions that I choose because they are the way it seems to me to be appropriate for me to live.

There are sanctimonious and non-sanctimonious vegans, Buddhists, classical music afficionados and ascetics. To assume that somebody is sanctimonious just because some people that share a property with them are sanctimonious would be intellectual laziness.

Then again - some people are intellectually lazy and some are not. Who am I to judge those that choose the path of intellectual laziness?

Then again - some people are judgemental and some are not. Who am I to judge those that choose to be judgemental of others for their intellectual laziness?

Then again...

Crikey - does this regress actually ever stop??!!??

No Andrew that's why it's called a 'slippery slope'....

I think one of the difficult things about modern life is that not everyone can be right. There are well-intentioned people who are arguing on behalf of causes that you really actually ought to disagree with. Let's pick one: militant animal activism. There are animal activists who believe that killing animals is murder, and that animals should be treated as if they have the same rights as persons. Now, I will never agree with that. Coming to think of it, there are many opinions being put about that I don't agree with at all; one is constantly deluged by them via the diversified media nowadays. I don't agree that scientology is a religion, for instance.

So what to do? Retreat into solitary crankiness? Rail at the telly? I don't know - that is why it is difficult. But the answer is NOT that 'all opinions are equal', nor that everything is simply a matter of opinion. It's possible that large numbers of one's fellow citizens make flawed judgements about a number of things. Scary, but possible.

Incidentally, one of the core tenets of Buddhism is 'rejection of asceticism'. Sure, Buddhists might LOOK ascetic to our middle-class Western eyes, but the 'middle path' of Buddhism is the rejection of the 'two extremes' of pursuit of pleasure at one end (that's us, by and large), and asceticism, at the other - by which they mean, standing in the sun motionless for hours on end, piercing the body with sharp objects, living naked with packs of dogs (like Diogenes was said to have done) and so on. So Buddhism is not an example of asceticism, although from our comfortable sofa by the television, it might seem like it.

The ascetic is one who rejects worldly things in pursuit of a higher transcendental plane of existence, or something to that effect.

But isn't this kind of insulting to those who aren't ascetics? The ascetic, in virtue of his actions, is essentially telling the rest of the rabble that what they like to do is inadequate, insufficient, or not worthy of praise. — darthbarracuda

We rabble, bless us, give limited admiration and a wide berth to the ascetic holy man, but we ourselves have no intentions of starving, freezing, or abstaining from all pleasures and necessities. There is little enough for us as it is. We rabble understand that some people think cold water, stale bread, and a bed rags on the ground comprise the royal road to holiness, but 99.938% of us lack any intention of following that path.

Amused slightly, perhaps, or appalled. A little grateful if the holy man's privations shed some grace on us. Insulted, no.

I think one of the difficult things about modern life is that not everyone can be right. — Wayfarer

Just out of curiosity, what age was it when everyone could be right?

There are sanctimonious and non-sanctimonious vegans, Buddhists, classical music afficionados and ascetics. To assume that somebody is sanctimonious just because some people that share a property with them are sanctimonious would be intellectual laziness. — andrewk

That is indeed true. From the action alone it is difficult to discern self-conscious posing from genuine enjoyment or genuine empathy. In case my own response seemed too cynical, I just wanted to clarify that. I'm particularly interested in posing as such. As I see it, we learn to become more natural and more ourselves, if we're lucky. (Lucky?) Now embattled rhetoric on a philosophy forum is something else, I think. I don't accuse it. I just like theories and to theorize about it.

But the answer is NOT that 'all opinions are equal', nor that everything is simply a matter of opinion. — Wayfarer

Not only are not all opinions equal, many of them are not even wrong. Many opinions are just plain stupid. What is important is that you be certain of the rightness of what you know and believe.

It's possible that large numbers of one's fellow citizens make flawed judgements about a number of things. — Wayfarer

It is not only possible that large numbers of one's fellow citizens make flawed judgements, it is a dead certainty that they make flawed judgements. Worse than that, sometimes even we (!) make flawed judgements (every little once in a while).

I think one of the difficult things about modern life is that not everyone can be right. There are well-intentioned people who are arguing on behalf of causes that you really actually ought to disagree with. Let's pick one: militant animal activism. There are animal activists who believe that killing animals is murder, and that animals should be treated as if they have the same rights as persons. Now, I will never agree with that. Coming to think of it, there are many opinions being put about that I don't agree with at all; one is constantly deluged by them via the diversified media nowadays. I don't agree that scientology is a religion, for instance.

So what to do? Retreat into solitary crankiness? Rail at the telly? I don't know - that is why it is difficult. But the answer is NOT that 'all opinions are equal', nor that everything is simply a matter of opinion. It's possible that large numbers of one's fellow citizens make flawed judgements about a number of things. Scary, but possible. — Way

Perhaps you'll agree that the "problem" is that everyone tends to think that they are right. Hence the quest for some neutral referee (pure reason or science or God's will or whatever). But then no one as a general rule can agree on this referee. Nor can they agree on a method for constructing such a referee. This for me is starting point. That's why rhetoric or sophistry has never left us. We don't have a referee, just a permanent revolution of the means of seduction. That's rhetoric, too, right? I'd say so.
Reason is the rhetoric we like?

It is insulting in the same way that somebody listening to classical music is insulting — andrewk

I have listened to classical music for many, many hours, trying to insult my fellow citizens. And you know what? It just didn't work. None of them were insulted. In fact, they didn't give a rat's ass that I was wasting my time listening to that crap. They were all listening to the latest thing coming out of the pipe and were totally indifferent to my condescending, insulting slanderous taste in music.

Just out of curiosity, what age was it when everyone could be right?

Well, probably never, but it wasn't long ago that nobody had the means of broadcasting their opinions or forming interest groups.

Actually, I think one salient point is this: that in a traditional society (not that they were better just because they were traditional) one had 'rights and duties'. Nowadays, we have a lot of rights, but the sense of propriety and duty - not so much. Also in liberal cultures, the individual is the arbiter of value, whereas again in traditional socieities, it wasn't up to him or her.

I value individual freedom - I mean, I would far rather live in Australia or the US than in China, for that reason. But I think the underlying rationale of individualism has shifted enormously in the last few generations. 'Nihil ultra ego' - nothing beyond the self - seems to be the attitude.

Is the ascetic justified in their actions? Can they really say that what they are doing is "better" than what everyone else is doing? For the ascetic himself, asceticism might be seen as a kind of personal salvation, but to everyone else, could it come across as obnoxious? Can we criticize the ascetic for this, or are they free of blame here? — darthbarracuda

We could, I suppose, judge them by the sort of fruit they bear. What good is it doing them, or anybody else, that they are ascetics? It Jack finds salvation by living in a monks cell, silently meditating, praying ceaselessly, and eating little, more power to him. That doesn't mean everyone should get themselves a similar bare concrete block cell and follow suit.

On the other hand, we could also judge the hedonists by the fruit they bear. What good are they doing themselves or anyone else? Maybe some hedonists have found a way of doing good in the world. We can raise the bar a bit for their evidence, but it's possible they bear good fruit--which they probably then eat.

...or wallow in, being hedonists....

But I think the underlying rationale of individualism has shifted enormously in the last few generations. — Wayfarer

The pendulum has definitely swung, but I'm not sure it is just "too much individualism" that we are suffering from. Some of what passes for individualism is alienation, anomie, atomization, disrupted community, dysfunctional families, and so on. Many individuals have nothing to fall back on but individuality, and that alone is not enough. Individuality that develops in the context of solid family life, fully functioning communities, and with learning is worth pursuing. Unfortunately, a lot of people's individuality is that of an aquarium of fish tossed out in the street. Their "individuality" is the privilege of dying alone.

So what to do? Retreat into solitary crankiness? Rail at the telly? I don't know - that is why it is difficult. But the answer is NOT that 'all opinions are equal', nor that everything is simply a matter of opinion. — Wayfarer

I don't think anybody is suggesting that all opinions are equal. That would be futile. Either 'equal' means 'identical' (ie the classical meaning of equal), in which case the statement can be shown to be false simply by finding two people with different opinions on a a topic. Or 'equal' means something like 'equally valid', in which case I'd say the statement is a category error, because validity is not a property that an opinion has or lacks, any more than blueness is a property that a number has or lacks.

My approach to the conundrum is to not judge those that do not share my opinions, but instead, in the case of an opinion that I treasure, such as tolerance, compassion or environmental protection, to seek to persuade people to share my opinion. Experience has shown that persuasion is a skill that I do not possess in any significant amount, but I still give it a go. I also vote my opinion in elections.

Turning back to the ascetics, I get the impression that most ascetics are not interested in persuading others to adopt their opinions and practices. Diogenes didn't seem to be. In fact, if everyone were like Diogenes, everyone would starve, as nobody would grow any food.

One other thing: In a thread about ascetics, I feel I ought to mention the middle essay (I think it's the middle one) in Nietzsche's Genealogy of Morality, which was about asceticism. As I recall he was negative about it. I can't remember his reasons. As I recall it was the most obscure of the three essays. But it was clear that he didn't think much of them.

I'm sorry if I misunderstood, I interpreted the below as amounting to 'all opinions being equal':

I think that goes for many things that some people consider 'better', including morals. I listen to classical music because I like it. I don't eat junk food because I don't like it. I give to Oxfam because I feel impelled to do that. None of these are in any way claims of superiority. They are simply actions that I choose because they are the way it seems to me to be appropriate for me to
Iive — AndrewK

Perhaps it's more like saying such judgements are a matter of opinion?

The ascentic is like the Final Form of the narcissist. In this state they have become unsurpassably lovable, and God's favorite. Nanananana hahahahaha.

Classical music is objectively worse than what I like, and oh yes, most definitely anyone that listens to it is advertising something about themselves rather than genuinely relating to, and being absorbed by it. Sure plenty pretend to like all kinds of things for the purposes of saying something about themselves, rather than genuine enjoyment, and enjoyment can be cultivated and developed over time. Surely those that stayed to it, and kept listening to it despite the pain, developed an awkward taste for it.

Surely at one time a lot of people really loved it, because there wasn't anything better around.

They're more just in the way than anything. No one is more useless. They have to talk about how unthreatening, peaceful, and all things good and put up withable they are because they're so god damn useless that they had better be.

Not sure why anyone would feel insulted. That feeling, to me, would speak more about their own egos than about the aspiring ascetic's. While I may lack the self-control to practice that lifestyle, I don't pride myself on my own shortcomings and can appreciate those who try to do maintain some discipline over their desires.

Of course there may be some whose motivations for following this path are egotistical (I think Nietzsche diagnosed this as the basic characteristic of the ascetic 'type'), who want to lord it over others in order to feel superior, but if done sincerely and out of a desire to overcome their weakness for worldly things, I would acknowledge my admiration and wish them well.

Well, probably never, but it wasn't long ago that nobody had the means of broadcasting their opinions or forming interest groups. — Wayfarer

Really? Moses seems to have managed pretty well in fomenting a religious revolution 6000 years ago and Paul some 2000 years ago.

You could say the same thing about anyone. Different people choose to spend their time differently. They have different concerns, engage in different activities, etc.

It's just a matter of whether one has a snobby/elitist attitude about one's own choices contra other possible choices. And any category of activities or concerns can involve people having snobby or elitist attitudes about it.

In my opinion the ideal is to be comfortable with difference; to not have an attitude about it. Snobby/elitist attitudes about it, especially when one sees them as normative, are the source of a lot of the world's strife. People need to chill and let other people be different than themselves.

Obvioualy, but I wasn't referring to prophets.

For the ascetic himself, asceticism might be seen as a kind of personal salvation, but to everyone else, could it come across as obnoxious? Can we criticize the ascetic for this, or are they free of blame here? — darthbarracuda

Y'all may feel insulted by my failure, until now, to consider this thread worthy of my response. Indeed, if you don't, I feel insulted that you value my contributions so little. But I wouldn't blame you for your poor opinion, and if you are sufficiently sensitive and intelligent, you will be insulted by that too.

Not to be insulted by others is not to take them seriously, which is insulting. Get used to it.

Perhaps it is insulting only if there is assurance of an abundance of resources in the long term. But that is not likely given a variety of reasons, ranging from peak oil to global warming.

Is the ascetic justified in their actions? Can they really say that what they are doing is "better" than what everyone else is doing? — darthbarracuda

I think you should question the insulted, not the ascetic.

The ascetic has typically made a deliberate choice to live an ascetic life, and people live ascetic lives for many different reasons. For example, health issues, poverty, or beliefs about ecology or sustainability (e.g. urban minimalists, or back-to-nature romantics), or as part of some religious or spiritual ritual, to satisfy a curiosity on what it's like to live an ascetic life and so on.

But to feel insulted seems less deliberate and more irrational, for the mere fact that you exist, or your demise even, can be insulting to an envious, strong-willed, childish or mad person.

Moreover, we ought to assume that the ascetic are justified in their actions, or else we would violate the principle of charity, for no-one is deliberately irrational.