Ideologies are counter productive, rather than required. Intentions are much better. Praxis exclusively, no need for doxa. Doxa over praxis is precisely what endangers the entire enterprise -- as it merely reflects the appearance of what grows out of praxis.

Or to put it in another way. Talk about what you know, and if you don't know it, don't say it.

Epicurus.

Look at the stoics. For instance, Seneca is not a religious man.

There are people (not too many) who practice voluntary poverty who are not religious, and are quite capable of earning a decent income. It isn't just 'simple living'. Their live styles are ascetic by necessity, but asceticism as such isn't their goal.

They have opted to be poor as a way of largely freeing themselves of the expectations of the market. Their motivation is ethical and they do not sponge off parents or social benefit programs. Generally they do work to maintain themselves in independent poverty (food, shelter, minimal essentials).

Not many people do this because it is difficult, and one needs a very strong motivation to fail marketplace expectations. I know maybe a half dozen people who have done this for a period of time (the longest was about 15 years).

It has become increasingly difficult to succeed at this. The cost of minimal food and housing have risen enough that unreliable episodic or part-time work no longer produces enough income. One ends up needing to work close to full time (in low paid, low-commitment work) which undermines one of the goals of voluntary poverty--ample free time. The other effect of rising costs is to push the would-be ascetic back into more demanding work, which requires them to meet marketplace expectations.

Look at the stoics. For instance, Seneca is not a religious man. — Pacem

Seneca the Younger? He's probably the least ascetic stoic imaginable! What makes you think he's ascetic?

There are people (not too many) who practice voluntary poverty who are not religious, and are quite capable of earning a decent income. It isn't just 'simple living'. Their live styles are ascetic by necessity, but asceticism as such isn't their goal. — Bitter Crank

This reminds me of this guy, http://www.heavyblogisheavy.com/2010/08/26/things-that-are-fucking-metal-poverty-homelessness/

He's clearly given up money, and I guess bath water and soup too, but is he really living a life aimed at limiting unneeded indulgences? Seems to me that he's not, and I doubt he'd even consider himself "ascetic" at all. Can he be considered an ascetic even if he doesn't label himself one?

They have opted to be poor as a way of largely freeing themselves of the expectations of the market. Their motivation is ethical and they do not sponge off parents or social benefit programs. Generally they do work to maintain themselves in independent poverty (food, shelter, minimal essentials).

Not many people do this because it is difficult, and one needs a very strong motivation to fail marketplace expectations. I know maybe a half dozen people who have done this for a period of time (the longest was about 15 years).

It has become increasingly difficult to succeed at this. The cost of minimal food and housing have risen enough that unreliable episodic or part-time work no longer produces enough income. One ends up needing to work close to full time (in low paid, low-commitment work) which undermines one of the goals of voluntary poverty--ample free time. The other effect of rising costs is to push the would-be ascetic back into more demanding work, which requires them to meet marketplace expectations. — Bitter Crank

I have heard and read about these sorts of people as well, but I wonder what their motivations are for living a poor life, a life that is more than just being monetarily poor? If there isn't a religious conviction, is their choice purely selfish? If it is selfish, then I find that contradictory with asceticism's goal, which is to limit one's desires and attachments to the world and what's in it, which includes one's own self!

Their motivation is ethical and they do not sponge off parents or social benefit programs. Generally they do work to maintain themselves in independent poverty (food, shelter, minimal essentials).

How exactly is their motivation ethical if it doesn't make it easier for them to help their families or others? It would seem to lower their ability to do either.

Their live styles are ascetic by necessity — Bitter Crank

Then they aren't ascetic. Asceticism must be voluntary or else it quickly becomes destructive and immoral, which asceticism isn't in itself.

Is asceticism a lifestyle, intellectual pursuit, or both? — Heister Eggcart

There is physical asceticism, aimed at reducing the demands of the body, and mental asceticism, aimed at reducing the demands of the mind, so both I guess.

Is there such a thing as nonreligious asceticism? — Heister Eggcart

The more interesting question to me, since there clearly have been a small number of ascetic figures with no identifiable religious commitments, is whether asceticism can flourish only within religion. In other words, do the exceptions prove the rule, that asceticism has vitality only within religious traditions. An isolated ascetic can do nothing to maintain asceticism, whereas an organized institution, like a religion, can.

I wonder what their motivations are for living a poor life, a life that is more than just being monetarily poor? If there isn't a religious conviction, is their choice purely selfish? If it is selfish, then I find that contradictory with asceticism's goal, which is to limit one's desires and attachments to the world and what's in it, which includes one's own self! — Heister Eggcart

Not working a great deal frees up ones time for other pursuits -- quite possibly of considerable benefit to other people. The people I'm thinking of had desires and attachments a plenty. WHAT they desired was freedom from the constraints of the work/market place.

Yes, there are inherent contradictions in choosing poverty.

How exactly is their motivation ethical if it doesn't make it easier for them to help their families or others? It would seem to lower their ability to do either. — Thanatos Sand

These guys (mostly guys) couldn't have supported and didn't have families. There are ways of helping people that don't involve money; two guys operated a used book store (which they also lived in) and were available to philosophize. One of the guys--Larry--was at least in his 50s. He was toothless, not too healthy, dressed in old clothes; a decrepit guy, looked like a bum. But Larry was smart and well educated and had many theological and philosophical interests. He also had a good sense of humor and was quite perceptive.

Their live styles are ascetic by necessity
— Bitter Crank

Then they aren't ascetic. Asceticism must be voluntary or else it quickly becomes destructive and immoral, which asceticism isn't in itself. — Thorongil

Their asceticism was voluntary--no one forced or coaxed them into living that way. The phrase "ascetic by necessity" is confusing. so just ignore it. The point is that one can't live out an authentic ascetic life on a well endowed trust fund. Were they making a virtue out of necessity? "We have no money, so let's profess the advantages of poverty." I suppose that's possible, but most of these men (1 woman) were capable of earning an income, and did earn what they needed. (Larry the philosopher/used-book seller was probably doomed to not work. I don't know who would have hired him, looking the way he did. Later on, he went on a social program which included Medicaid and they paid for a set of dentures.)

Larry is a good example of what happens when one fails to live up to marketplace standards. If one falls too far below the minimum acceptable aesthetic standard, one is an untouchable, no matter how bright one is.

How exactly is their motivation ethical if it doesn't make it easier for them to help their families or others? It would seem to lower their ability to do either.
— Thanatos Sand

These guys (mostly guys) couldn't have supported and didn't have families. There are ways of helping people that don't involve money; two guys operated a used book store (which they also lived in) and were available to philosophize. One of the guys--Larry--was at least in his 50s. He was toothless, not too healthy, dressed in old clothes; a decrepit guy, looked like a bum. But Larry was smart and well educated and had many theological and philosophical interests. He also had a good sense of humor and was quite perceptive.

I never said there weren't ways to help people that didn't involve money, but it is hard to come up with the time and resources to help people when one is always working for subsistence. Philosophizing and having a good sense of humor and being perceptive are great, but in themselves they rarely help people or significantly contribute to society or those in need. So, I still don't see the ethics in their asceticism.

I saw Campbell say that myths are mirrors for the ego, that tell us where we are in life. I like that a lot, probably because of whom I've identified with throughout life. I live a quiet contemplative life, and tend to pursue mental and physical perfection. Have I got something to prove? Probably. Am I just narcissistic? That one seems quit plausible, until I look at how I actually live, and treat others. In my experience, the real narcissists use other people, lie a lot, and just have thing inner sense that they're more valuable, and are entitled to more. That people should pay them to be around, and wait on them hand and foot. I am more like a co-dependent. I get a job, and then corner production, and let some narcissist take all of the credit. They tend to be the thieves and liars. and users of others. I've done that like four or five times now...

They do all of the dealing with people, and taking all of the credit, and I just get to be left alone, and do all of the work. I always grow to resent them though, and expect them to treat me like an equal when they are never the kind of person that can ever do that. They're always manipulative, and think that this makes them smarter than others. I'm used to this kind of person because of the family I come from, so I don't find them particularly objectionable until they've crossed my ego enough times.

Last year, I had become the most senior person even there, and although I don't like telling people want to do, and I let people get away with a lot, while I'm happy to just do everything, but people tend to respect me. Art of work shit. They won't respect people that do less and get more benefits, you have to justify those extra benefits to them by doing more, so usually the other workers work hard with me, I'm really nice and full of praise when they do good, and express my feelings when they fuck up just as clearly. Because I treat everyone as an equal, and am just in my assessments, when the real bosses show up, they're useless, in the way, talk at you making you get nothing done forever, and treat everyone like scum, and idiots. This is the reason why I left. The passive aggression, and just complete destruction of the atmosphere when they showed up, and buddy paying me less, sending me a list of his bills, wishing to compare them with mine, justifying it by trying to afford to buy a third house, right close to me to want to climb right inside my ass... I was like fuck you, but not become telling him that I knew every lie he told me, and everything he was up to, and every scheme he pulls, and he never got anything by me.

Last year I was getting weed from one of the employees, and I always like to pay back grossly more than I get, so I was letting him scheme his way to the top, and do less, and make more, but he was out to destroy me, and was telling lies about me, saying he was doing everything behind my back and I was only working like that with them around, so I was like prove it then! Anyone can say anything, they can't do anything, I'm three of you at your best. You can't just push yourself for a day an match me, having been pushing myself everyday for years, I'm three of you! So I went home, and it took them three days to do a house that would have taken us six hours with me there. So they he stayed home and I did a similar house in seven hours. I underestimated myself, and was more than three of him.

I left out of spite to fuck them, because I wasn't going to be treated that way any longer, they won't be making nearly as much, because they won't be able to come close to matching that production without me, or five guys to replace me.

I do hate dealing with people though, and still need to find a job, I just have to make sure that I don't get wrapped up in the same bullshit for like the sixth time... yeah... what was this thread about again?

Original meaning of 'askesis' is training. Many athletes are 'asketic' in that sense. But in Plato's day, athletic, spiritual and intellectual excellence were regarded as complementary.

Jains are intensely ascetic, and atheist.

Original meaning of 'askesis' is training. Many athletes are 'asketic' in that sense. But in Plato's day, athletic, spiritual and intellectual excellence were regarded as complementary.

Sure, but we're not in Plato's day anymore and the word has changed to its new Modern English meaning, like many other words. So, spiritual and intellectual excellence are not necessarily complementary anymore.

Philosophizing and having a good sense of humor and being perceptive are great, but in themselves they rarely help people or significantly contribute to society or those in need. So, I still don't see the ethics in their asceticism. — Thanatos Sand

Maybe you haven't spent enough time around people devoid of a sense of humor to understand how valuable a sense of humor can be. As for philosophizing... That's what we do here. Is it of any value? I think so.

"They also served who have the time to talk and laugh." There are a lot of lonely people out there. They have a great (and perfectly normal) need to connect with someone who will patiently listen to them for a while, in a friendly empathic way. Someone who has time to listen to them.

Philosophizing and having a good sense of humor and being perceptive are great, but in themselves they rarely help people or significantly contribute to society or those in need. So, I still don't see the ethics in their asceticism.
— Thanatos Sand

Maybe you haven't spent enough time around people devoid of a sense of humor to understand how valuable a sense of humor can be. As for philosophizing... That's what we do here. Is it of any value? I think so.

No, I've been around both people with humor and those without. I've never seen someone actually significantly help people in need with it. Is that what your friend does? Like Patch Adams?

And while the philosophizing we do here may be of value--one could make that argument for most anything--it certainly isnt' helping people in need, nor is it significantly contributing to society. So, I'd hardly call our choice to participate in this as ethical behavior, but more like a productive pastime.

There is physical asceticism, aimed at reducing the demands of the body, and mental asceticism, aimed at reducing the demands of the mind, so both I guess. — Thorongil

I think you need both, as I don't see how a millionaire pimp who fails at reducing the demands of the body could also be mentally ascetic at the same time.

The more interesting question to me, since there clearly have been a small number of ascetic figures with no identifiable religious commitments, is whether asceticism can flourish only within religion. In other words, do the exceptions prove the rule, that asceticism has vitality only within religious traditions. — Thorongil

If you posit that the fullest ascetic vitality can only be achieved through one's adherence to a particular religion, then I think you've immediately judged the ascetic vitality of nonreligious ascetics to be less full and subsequently inferior.

An isolated ascetic can do nothing to maintain asceticism, whereas an organized institution, like a religion, can. — Thorongil

If this is true, then asceticism isn't an end in itself if it can only be attained to its fullest within an established religious framework. Yet, is mere religious affiliation and adherence all an ascetic needs in order to fulfill the most robust asceticism? I doubt that you'd argue that a Sufist ascetic is as equally, robustly ascetic as the Christian, or the Buddhist, or even the Jain, as Wayfarer mentioned. Clearly one must pick a single religious path with the presumption that its asceticism has more vitality than the others, at which point you've cut down the amount of "proper" ascetics by a huge margin. The nonreligious ascetics would be as shallow, then, as the religious ascetics who aren't of the same religion as you.

Jains are atheist — Wayfarer

This is false, or at least misleading. Jains do not believe in a single, creator god, but they accept the Vedic devas and worship all sorts of deities in a ritualized manner.

then I think you've immediately judged the ascetic vitality of nonreligious ascetics to be less full and subsequently inferior — Heister Eggcart

Yes. So much the worse for them.

I doubt that you'd argue that a Sufist ascetic is as equally, robustly ascetic as the Christian, or the Buddhist, or even the Jain, as Wayfarer mentioned — Heister Eggcart

I wouldn't mind arguing this, though. The asceticism of Sufis, Christian monks, Buddhist monks, Jain monks, Hindu sadhus, and so on may indeed be of the same quality. The difference lies in the belief structure that motivates them. One chooses a religion based on determining, as best one can, the truth of that belief structure, not the quality of asceticism resultant therefrom. Though the latter may still be a factor in that decision (and is a large one for me), it can't be the primary one.

Yes. So much the worse for them. — Thorongil

How worse? Not as barebones a meal or like hell?

I wouldn't mind arguing this, though. The asceticism of Sufis, Christian monks, Buddhist monks, Jain monks, Hindu sadhus, and so on may indeed be of the same quality. The difference lies in the belief structure that motivates them. One chooses a religion based on determining, as best one can, the truth of that belief structure, not the quality of asceticism resultant therefrom. Though the latter may still be a factor in that decision (and is a large one for me), it can't be the primary one. — Thorongil

This then has more to do with the religion than the asceticism.

How worse? Not as barebones a meal or like hell? — Heister Eggcart

I don't quite understand the question. I was being slightly sarcastic mind you. The isolated ascetic does no favors for asceticism as a whole, whereas religion can. So the secular ascetic is bad, or at least irrelevant, to asceticism.

OK I'll put it another way, the Janin concept of spiritual liberation doesn't rely on there being a God (same as Buddhists); they're non-theistic in that sense.

Jainism does not teach the dependency on any supreme being for enlightenment. The Tirthankara is a guide and teacher who points the way to enlightenment, but the struggle for enlightenment is one's own. Moral rewards and sufferings are not the work of a divine being, but a result of an innate moral order in the cosmos; a self-regulating mechanism whereby the individual reaps the fruits of his own actions through the workings of the karmas.

More like the stoics who were likewise generally categorised as atheist.