Whoa, I never said anything like that. — Wallows

Except you did, you just move the goalposts. Everything I listed was an example of a recreational experience. You questioned the "need" for recreational experiences if someone's life is going "great" and "well".

Do as you wish. Or better move to Holland where you can find pushers on every corner of a red light district. Ok, now I'm exaggerating. I hear Holland is one of the happiest countries on Earth. — Wallows

Hahahahahaha. This is brilliant. You'll never guess where I'm going in about two months time. Seriously. The flights and accommodation are booked.

What I'm trying to imply is why would people need to have recreational experiences if their lives are going great and well. We talked about this in that other thread on illegal drugs. — Wallows

Haha. Right. Their lives are going so great and well that they have no "need" (it's about desire, not necessity!) for skiing or bowling or going to the movies or to a dance club or to experience a hallucinogenic drug or the euphoria of ecstasy and so on and so forth. That sure sounds real fun.

The unfun life is not worth living. I am not a square.

To each his or her own, I suppose. If drugs really give you a kick, then so be it. Just don't become addicted or develop some dependency on them. — Wallows

Just don't wallow too much or too deeply. Don't wallow in excess. Find your balance. Or, fuck it, do whatever, because fuck it.

The philosophy of fuck it. :grin:

So, the value is in their recreational import to people. — Wallows

Yes.

Okay, somewhat circular; but, have it your way. — Wallows

I don't see any supposed circularity.

So, you're telling me at one end that drugs are not bad (just an example); but, a lifestyle choice. On the other end, I'm asking you what utility do drugs have to an individual? — Wallows

I didn't tell you that drugs aren't bad. I've never told you that. I wouldn't say something so simplistic and misleading.

And the potential utility is blindingly obvious, and we've been over this before. They are called recreational drugs for a reason. Their use is recreational. You wouldn't query this of other recreational activities, so you apply a double standard.

No, I don't dare project my sentiment/feelings/emotions/experience onto others. Idiots do that. If you need a word for it, it might be a simple matter of caring for your welfare, which you abhor. But, as you said, I mean well. — Wallows

So then presumably you accept that you not getting any good out of it, and drugs being a dead end for you, is not necessarily true of others, in line with their own sentiments, experience, etc., which is not going to be identical to your sentiments, experience, etc.?

And I do not abhor what you say I do.

That's a damn fine analysis.

Hence, I find anyone who advocates philosophy as therapy, where nobody is asking for it in some sort of contradiction.

How does one progress from this dilemma? — Wallows

What's the contradiction? It's not a contradiction, but a paradox at best. It can make sense to advocate what's in someone's best interest, even if that someone is against it.

How does one progress from this dilemma? — Wallows

Keep trying or move on.

But, I have had some (extensive) experience with drugs myself, and nothing good ever came out of it. — Wallows

I don't believe you, though. I believe that the scales tipped against it in your case, or at least you reached that conclusion, but not that nothing good ever came out of it. I think that that's your antagonism talking. You project your own experience on to others, overstepping your bounds. But you mean well.

I guess I didn't phrase that quite right, but the way that I intended to phrase it is that people who use drugs are more likely to end their boredom with something other than things like philosophy forums. — christian2017

And again, if so, then I am still very much the exception to this. I have 9,000 comments here, 12,000 posts on the old forum, and I have spent a great deal of time on a philosophy forum over the last ten years. Currently, it is a daily activity.

I also, as I mentioned, happen do drugs more often than the average person.

You're a smart guy, do away with the drugs. They're a dead end. — Wallows

I'm aware that they're not exactly harmless little drops of magic. But we were just talking about demanding something of someone. You questioned whether it was any different to evangelism. And, of all people, I certainly do not simply bow down to an imperative like, "Do away with the drugs". No, do away with the do away-ing: wasn't that sort of your message here? I don't want your cure. I'm a free spirit.

But you're right about one thing: I am a smart guy. I'm also a mad philosopher.

I cannot agree with that.
— creativesoul

Hardly anybody does. — Mww

Yes. It's called common sense.

Not all promise making is good.
— creativesoul

This is just an instance of moral relativism.
— Mww

Looks like a true statement about a particular kind of speech act to me. — creativesoul

Have we got to the stage where simply calling something an instance of moral relativism is supposed to be some kind of slur or criticism? Or was that said with indifference, in a matter of fact sort of way?

Either way, for once I agree with you both. It is indeed an instance of moral relativism, and it does indeed, at least to me, look like a true statement about a particular kind of speech act.

So, promising to kill another's family is always morally good.

I cannot agree with that. — creativesoul

Wait, what? You're being sensible. Are you feeling alright?

People who use less drugs are more likely to spend more time with things that deal with the mind. — christian2017

If so, then I must be an exception. I do both more than the average person.

Philosophers are said to be mad people. — Wallows

Anyway, sometimes the "mad" ones are the best ones. Who wants to be normal?

But, is the unexamined life really not worth living? — Wallows

That's for you decide, is it not?

I could just as well live "an unexamined life" and be happy too. — Wallows

Okay. And you judge that to be of equal value?

Keep in mind that all what our conversations amount to are elaborate and abstract sayings like "philosophy as therapy", "the unexamined life..." and so on.

Is this plain and simple mental masturbation? — Wallows

Noun. mental masturbation (uncountable) (slang) Engaging in intellectually stimulating conversation with little or no practical purpose.

I can get practical purpose out of philosophy. I thought you could, too.

Yeah, that's perhaps the issue here. Nobody asked to be cured. Nobody wants to be cured. So, why bother? The people who demand that others be cured are no different than evangelicals. Don't you think so too? — Wallows

I think there's a difference between demanding something of someone, and showing them a pathway, or inviting someone to sit under a tree for a while. If they decline or walk a different path, then so be it. If someone doesn't need to be cured, then good for them. But perhaps they're under an illusion. Personally, I strive to treat myself where necessary. But it's important to treat yourself with medicine, and not poison.

What happened to philosophy as therapy? Anyway, if you think it'll do you some good, escape for a while. You're holding the reins, aren't you?

Speaking of which, this one's a good one to escape for a while:

Anyway, why should I? There's no authority on the matter, and I am entitled to my own peace and tranquility. — Wallows

Doesn't seem to be working too well from where I'm standing. You still seem troubled. Maybe it's time to try out a different technique.

The harder stuff is more risky.
— S

True, but what are risks to those that indulge in its recreational usage? There are plenty of functional users. — Anaxagoras

Oops, I misread your question the first time around. I read it as asking what are the risks...

Nevermind. I get your point now. As in, the risks aren't the be-all and end-all for some, and that is true of many people, in relation to a whole variety of recreational activities, not just drug taking. Some can still function, or rather function enough to get by.

there is may about it — christian2017

If you say so, christian2017. I trust your impartiality in this matter.

If you want an authority on Nietzsche, look up Walter Kaufman.

I understand Hitler may have been taking Nietzsche out of context when using him for inspiration... — christian2017

There's no "may" about it, and if you understand the above, then why propagate the association between the two which has already done so much damage?

...but I think the new collective fiction needs to be very well thought out. — christian2017

Have you read the book? Or are you judging it by its cover, and by the propaganda?

Of course, Huxley had a lot more to say on the subject than just repeating his thesis over and over and disparaging anyone who might disagree as stubborn, stupid or dishonest. — SophistiCat

Nods head.

Anyone pretending they can make a probability estimate in either direction...is (in the vernacular) playing with him/herself. — Frank Apisa

With regard to God, I haven't seen any reasonable argument for making any assessment on probability whatsoever. And 50/50 is a probability assessment.

he does however say many times in the book that we need a new fiction to believe in our modern era that we live in. If we were to take everything in the book as though it was well thought out then that is the cause of me saying that our modern era needs a new collective fiction. — christian2017

I suppose now that God is dead, and we have killed him, we could aspire to become ubermensch. Do you know of Thus Spoke Zarathustra? It's a book for all and none.

Using Ludwig Van like that. — Wallows

You needn't tak' it any further, sir! You've proved to me that all this ultra-violence and killing is wrong! Wrong and terribly wrong! I've learnt me lesson, sir! I see now what I've never seen before! I'm cured! Praise God!

Hahaha. How is your cat? Are you feeding her lots of good things or starving her? — Wallows

She's good.

Good with some fava beans and a nice Chianti.

"Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah!! Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah!!! Aaaaahhh-ahhhhhhh!! No!!! No!!! Stop it, stop it, please, I beg you!!! It's a sin!!!!! It's a sin!!! It's a sin, a sin, a sin!!!!"

Anyway, stop wallowing and start shovelling, you are allowed to cry while you shovel. — unenlightened

But with every tear that falls, me and Crank will take another swing.

Why do you not share with us some of your understanding of - knowledge of - Aristotle on happiness so that we might know something of your objections to his thinking or your difficulties with it? — tim wood

Why do you assume I have such knowledge? Whether I do or don't, the whole point was that it isn't necessary. But if I'm interested, I'll look further into it. I'm interested in a lot of things, so it will probably be added to a very long list. Thanks for the reference to reading material, but be under no illusion: that's all it is.

Ah yes, whereas you have the moral high ground. You are up there, and "mere-s" is down here.

The beatings will continue until moral improves. — Frank Apisa

You haven't the yarbles for a drat, you droopy malchick.

Yes, you do. Google "Aristotle on happiness." Learn something. — tim wood

No, I don't. If I did, it would be out of interest, not necessity.

Google "self-sufficiency", if you have to. Or, you know, you could actually try thinking for yourself.

Maybe if you spent less time and effort on "correcting" and more on being correct, or at least clear, I wouldn't be revisiting this. Terrapin has been clear. I attempted to ask a simple question; he got it and answered, which I appreciate. From him, clarity and communication. From you, same old same old. Failure to answer and engage; indeed you seem to be careful not to. But much admonishment, mock, and all the time hand-waving to the effect that whatever is asked of you has always already been answered. In my post above I wrote, "Let's see what we get." And from you I got what I expected, which is nothing enlightening, really nothing at all. Thank you, then, for your nothing. — tim wood

So you don't recall what I've said on "mere", even though it was one of the first things I said to you almost 70 pages ago, and I've repeated it innumerable times since, and elsewhere? You are oblivious to my comments on "personal preference", even though they're right under your nose? And, as usual, this is all my fault.

I see how it is.

I wallow. — Wallows

Then I'll do it for you. You wallow, and I'll save the day. If I burn away your worldly attachments, you'll rise up like a phoenix.

And as soon as you do, I'll be there to shoot you down, my droog. :smile:

Maybe I didn't read the fine print of my social contract? — Wallows

Set fire to it, my droog.

Have a bit of that ultra-violence, eh? What are they putting in your milk these days? — Wallows

Vellocet, synthmesc, drencrom... it's all good, my droog.

Ah yes. Both good tracks.

"And do you have faith in God above...

...if the Bible tells you so?".

"Do you believe in Rock n' Roll?" (Yes!).

I own the book and am only part way through Part One. I love what I've read so far. You seem to put a positive spin on what the author said of religion. Some of the comments were not exactly flattering. On page 39, a caption next to a picture of the Pope reads, "The Catholic alpha male abstains from sexual intercourse and childcare, even though there is no genetic or ecological reason to do so". Page 34, "...and hocus pocus - the bread turned into Christ's flesh".

He doesn't argue that religion was necessary, just that fictional constructs had a use and were of benefit in ways.

Get happy, Wallows, or else. — Bitter Crank

:rofl:

Threaten him into being happy. I love it.

Cheer up, or I'll kick your bloody teeth in. You don't want me and Bitter Crank turning up at your door with baseball bats, do you, @Wallows?

Right. Did I mention Aristotle? — tim wood

Right, like I need Aristotle to give me a lecture on happiness.