Just to be fussy, we should make it clear what we mean by materialism, since a philosophical materialist could be an ascetic. One can believe that there is only one substance, matter, but think that the right relationship with material things is quite the opposite of hedonism, for example.

The Buddha said:

"Let go of the past, let go of the future, let go of the present, and cross over to the farther shore of existence. With mind wholly liberated, you shall come no more to birth and death.”

We all have to let go of everything in the end, so asceticism is a good disciple to master.

Thanks for pointing it out and Yes. By materialism, l meant to imply a hedonistic viewpoint of life. However l still believe that a hedonist and a materialist who believes that the world is nothing but matter are completely natural to each other and most of the time, we find both qualities together.

One of the most difficult aspect of asceticism is describing it. It can only be lived and experienced. Whatever Buddha or any ascetic says will always be lost in translation when it is spread around people who don't live that type of life. It takes an empty stomach to understand how the poor feel.

ve t I get what you mean and I think there are ways they work together, but there are a number of materialisms that are often if not usually couples with anti-hedonism. Dialectical materialism (marxism, say). Scientific materialism (in the sub culture of scientists). Now a marxist can be a hedonist and so can a scientist, but the first culture disapproves and the personality types drawn to the second tend to be more abstemious. But I'll drop this tangent here. I don't want to hijack.

Marxists do not favour hedonism but they cannot be in any way ascetic as they lack the element of freedom despite refraining from sensual pleasures. Further more, marxists cannot justify their ideals from the point of human will power as they negate it. As a matter of opinion, l think we can couple them up with hedonists as they do not liberate the human soul and engage it in an endless struggle and enslavement rather than a struggle to liberate oneself.Scientific materialism is vital for marxists as they believe in the supremacy of science over religion and spirituality.l will not say all those who favour scientism are marxists but those who are marxists need to believe in scientism.

One of the most difficult aspect of asceticism is describing it. It can only be lived and experienced. Whatever Buddha or any ascetic says will always be lost in translation when it is spread around people who don't live that type of life. It takes an empty stomach to understand how the poor feel. — Wittgenstein

You will no doubt recall that the Buddha willingly abandoned a life of luxury and subjected himself to an extreme of asceticism under the bodhi tree. He did so in order to experience the life of a poor, deprived, person - to understand their feelings and meditate on a solution. The result was the ‘middle way’ - a sort of psuedo-asceticism - that is intended to help us to deal with the difficulties life presents - a balance between asceticism and hedonism. I think the Buddha’s advise may still hold for modern society: we should not deprive ourselves but, through a limited practice of asceticism, we should be able to deal with the inevitable deprivations that are part of life.

Marxists do not favour hedonism but they cannot be in any way ascetic as they lack the element of freedom despite refraining from sensual pleasures. — Wittgenstein

Although I'm aligned with general Marxist principles, I'm not exceptionally well-read. I've not looked at Das Kapital for example. Could you explain to me how Marxists "lack the element of freedom"?

Although marxism aims to liberate human beings, particularly the working class from worrying about the basic neccessities of life and depending on an income for survival.They have to pay a price for that. In order for communes to function and work properly, the individual will has to be negated in favour of the collective will. The institution of religion and family are also opposed by Marxists and most people want to uphold them in one way or another. Therefore in a marxists state, such people will be denied all liberties related to the personal will or any other activity deemed unfit by Marxism.

Ok, so you are talking about how typical communist states work as opposed to some actual feature of core Marxist theory then? Because a failure of applied communism is not necessarily a failing of Marxist philosophy.

The individual will has to be negated in favour of the collective will — Wittgenstein

Arguably, this needs to happen in every society, if there were some valid means of quantifying and identifying the 'collective good.'

You can disagree but as far as l have understood, Marxism is a theory and communism is the final product of Marxism. Communism does not always fail but l find it difficult to see a sufficiently large communist state that is based on anarcho-syndicalist principles.For communism to function in the modern world, we will always need bureaucratic communism, which will always end up taking away liberties. Besides that, Marxism does not allow religion in any form and this isn't only in practice but in theory also.

The act of asceticism is in essence separating oneself from the percieved collective good and being free from the desires of the carnal self in any form, individual or collective.

Marxism is a theory and communism is the final product of Marxism. — Wittgenstein

Yes, Communism is an application of Marxism. In the same way that all different varieties of democracies are applications of democracy. My point is just that "Marxism" is specifically the theories of Karl Marx, so if you are making a significant claim like "Marxism isn't compatible with human freedom" then that needs to be substantiated, or corrected if it isn't true. Which in this case I don't think it is.

The act of asceticism is in essence separating oneself from the percieved collective good and being free from the desires of the carnal self in any form, individual or collective. — Wittgenstein

Um, no, I don't think so. The practice of ascetism is all about attaining a higher spiritual or moral state. The collective good very arguably qualifies as such. Where are you getting the idea that ascetism is about renouncing the collective good? This seems prima facie not true, as I just suggested.

Marxists do not favour hedonism but they cannot be in any way ascetic as they lack the element of freedom despite refraining from sensual pleasures. — Wittgenstein

Well, sure they can. They can spend money on vodka and go swimming or they can have consciousness raising meetings. Marxists in Western societies can choose between all the options their peers do. Marxist professors for example. There is always a way to aim for as much pleasure as possible or to aim for something else, regardless of income and circumstances.

l will not say all those who favour scientism are marxists but those who are marxists need to believe in scientism. — Wittgenstein

Wow. Scientism, which is the idea that the only route to knowledge can come via science, is a position that could be held quite easily by ascetics. In fact most of the people who claim to that epistemology that I know tend towards a rather disciplined life and certainly not an extravagant one. And when I use the word 'discipline' I am not being complimentary. I am using the word neutrally. I am a theist and do not adhere to scientism, but I don't recognize the materialists you are talking about, not as a rule or even as tendencies.

And a religious society, at least the ones we've had, demand sacrfices of individual will to moral systems determined by scripture and religious authority. The Abrahamic religions have managed to make really rather incredibly repressive societies to the individual will.

I also feel that asceticism is escapism, a way to avoid the troubling work of existence.

But I do not think all hope is lost on consumerism. The consumer is not necessarily devoid of spirituality and completely full of self-interest. The same is true of materialists. I even suspect that, in due time, the world has room for a completely materialist religion, one that need not appeal to gods and ghosts but can no less sanctify and make holy the world.

Well, sure they can. They can spend money on vodka and go swimming or they can have consciousness raising meetings. Marxists in Western societies can choose between all the options their peers do. Marxist professors for example. There is always a way to aim for as much pleasure as possible or to aim for something else, regardless of income and circumstances

I regard all Marxists professors who live in capitalist states and do not even attempt to move to a place where their world view is in practice to be hypocrites. They can certainly entertain the idea of Marxism but with regards to their living choices, they do not believe in it at all. By Marxists l mean all those who live by it and practise it. It's not a weak argument in my opinion. We are what we do.Take for an example medicine. If a person believes that the medicine is effective and he is feeling sick, he will take it.

Wow. Scientism, which is the idea that the only route to knowledge can come via science, is a position that could be held quite easily by ascetics. In fact most of the people who claim to that epistemology that I know tend towards a rather disciplined life and certainly not an extravagant one. And when I use the word 'discipline' I am not being complimentary. I am using the word neutrally. I am a theist and do not adhere to scientism, but I don't recognize the materialists you are talking about, not as a rule or even as tendencies.

Ascetics that follow a certain religion, say Abrahamic religions often tend to believe in some sort of inspiration from God, not revelation but inspiration as a means of knowledge. Rumi is quite popular and he did believe in a world that is beyond science but l leave this matter at your hand to explore further more. I don't think a few personal examples from your experience will invalidate the fact that those who believe in scientism also tend to be materialist.They do not have to live an extravagant life and extravagance is really hard to quantify. For some ascetics, eating food twice in a day and sleeping for 8 hours is already extravagant. According to science, death is defined as the death of the brain. Hence, those who believe in scientism have a firm ground for themselves to engage in seeking the pleasures of the carnal self, simply cause they believe it is all there is to a human being besides intelligence.

And a religious society, at least the ones we've had, demand sacrfices of individual will to moral systems determined by scripture and religious authority. The Abrahamic religions have managed to make really rather incredibly repressive societies to the individual will.

In my understanding of the morality given to us by Abrahamic religions. A lot of the matters that involve morality are in fact left to our own consciousness. The books do present certain moral codes but they are not enforced robotically but with keen self evaluation. For example, slavery wasn't explicitly prohibited by any Abrahamic religion yet it is now universally adopted to be morally reprehensible. The false dichotomy which Plato presented was inherited by the theologians mistakenly and l think morality evolves like any other form of human thought.

But I do not think all hope is lost on consumerism. The consumer is not necessarily devoid of spirituality and completely full of self-interest. The same is true of materialists. I even suspect that, in due time, the world has room for a completely materialist religion, one that need not appeal to gods and ghosts but can no less sanctify and make holy the world.

Consumerism is one of the terrible products of materialism. I understand the way you used the term self-interest but consumerism doesn't even allow such precepts to develop. It controls the self interests and molds them according to the need of those in control of the market. I think we have entered into an age where we can see some sort of materialistic religions. l do not think that such religions will carry the same force as those that extend their answers to include after life and answer the questions around death, that are so vital for finding a purpose in life. They will be quite hollow and be too flexible to leave every generation confused in some respects. At least that's the way l feel.

Um, no, I don't think so. The practice of ascetism is all about attaining a higher spiritual or moral state. The collective good very arguably qualifies as such. Where are you getting the idea that ascetism is about renouncing the collective good? This seems prima facie not true, as I just suggested.

The collective good is never a moral aspiration of the highest order. Renouncing this world is one of the steps ascetics undergo. I don't think we ever had any time in human history where such aims were adopted collectively. Besides that, in order to understand our true ambitions and intentions, we need to separate ourselves from the crowd. Remember that the crowd has no moral responsibility or consciousness in a way an individual has.Responsibility is always on an individual.

The collective good is never a moral aspiration of the highest order — Wittgenstein

It most certainly is.

Consumerism is one of the terrible products of materialism. I understand the way you used the term self-interest but consumerism doesn't even allow such precepts to develop. It controls the self interests and molds them according to the need of those in control of the market. I think we have entered into an age where we can see some sort of materialistic religions. — Wittgenstein

I completely agree with you. The problem is, for me personally, that I myself have become inured to (not to say corrupted by) the easy comforts which abound in modern culture. Nice house, good cars, widescreen TV. I admire asceticism considerably, but I fear I lack the self-discipline to observe it. (The only caveat being, if physical training and sitting meditation are forms of 'askesis' as I do practice those.)

In my understanding of the morality given to us by Abrahamic religions. A lot of the matters that involve morality are in fact left to our own consciousness. — Wittgenstein

Sure, but then, I was talking about religious societies. Perhaps they misinterpreted the scriptures, but they did this, and those that are this now still do this, as a rule. There were all sorts of prohibitions.

The books do present certain moral codes but they are not enforced robotically but with keen self evaluation — Wittgenstein

Unless a society brings them into the law, which was the rule everywhere and still is in many countries.

For example, slavery wasn't explicitly prohibited by any Abrahamic religion yet it is now universally adopted to be morally reprehensible — Wittgenstein

I am not sure what this demonstrates. Yes, people have gone beyond the implicit acceptance of slavery in the Bible. And this paralleled a reduction in those societies being religious societies. IOW as they got more secular. But, of course, even before this societies made secular laws. But my point was that religious ideologies, just like secular ones, end up restricting people's freedoms and choices.

I regard all Marxists professors who live in capitalist states and do not even attempt to move to a place where their world view is in practice to be hypocrites. — Wittgenstein

It would be their job to move whatever society they are in towards a Marxist state. If they all leave, then the chances of this go down. And, again, people living in Marxist societies, or on collectives in other societies, can choose to be hedonists or not. Regardless, of the restrictions in a society, the members of that society could be hedonists. In the former USSR any citizen could focus on experiencing pleasure as much as possible - and have this as a philosophy - or they could have other values. But professed Marxists, wherever they are, tend not to do this. Those who profess Marxism simply to protect themselves, may or may not be ascetic or hedonistic or anything in between, but being a Marxist tends to include a tendency to devalue pleasure. In fact one is supposed to aim at more collective goals. CApitalism on the other hand

definitely

encourages

hedonism.

And people who identify as capitalists are much more likely to be hedonists.

They do not have to live an extravagant life and extravagance is really hard to quantify. For some ascetics, eating food twice in a day and sleeping for 8 hours is already extravagant. According to science, death is defined as the death of the brain. Hence, those who believe in scientism have a firm ground for themselves to engage in seeking the pleasures of the carnal self, simply cause they believe it is all there is to a human being besides intelligence. — Wittgenstein

No,this does not follow. They can still value simplicity, discipline, social relations, collective achievements, stoicism, and so on. And, in fact, many scientists do. i don't know what your 'it' is in the last sentence, but obviously scientists believe in all sorts of things beyond intelligence and pleasure.

This isn't really a philosophical discussion but more of a discussion on the benefits of living a life devoid of materialism. — Wittgenstein

I think this is a question of psychology. Why would people subscribe to asceticism? What would make them chose to go without, and just how much are we talking about?

The forces of the post industrial, technology driven world that you believe destroys any individualism are embraced by people because they receive so much from it. Ironically they believe it confirms and highlights their individuality. Which suggests a powerful quest for a sense of individuality they cannot find. To give all that up and to have only what you need, which would be no different than your neighbour, is a real threat to that perception of individuality.

It’s true, as Devan99 said, that we all have to let go of everything in the end, but the “letting go” is not of material things but of who we are. Time, for many, will prepare you for the end, and you will let go of more and more, release the burdens of life, until you’re ready to let go of life itself. But that’s a long lesson about who we are.

The problem about changing our world through renunciation of consumerism is that we cannot be anything else. Asceticism means becoming virtually invisible to others, having nothing but the moment to live in. If we had that in us then we would be different people from who we are.

It’s because this is true that restraints on consumerism have to be applied against our will, or by a reduction in disposable income. But no one will work for less income because of the value they perceive in themselves, their individual worth. So it comes down to the sense of individualism again.

Maybe future generations could be manipulated into this reduction in consumption, but who would they be, could they really live and thrive without a sense of themselves except as a social unit, like an ant or bee? What if the consequences, of let’s call it asceticism, result in unmanageable mental health problems?