But that's not true because you aren't giving respect to the worse plumber as well. You are saying that, by failing to b a good plumber, they are less deserving of social respect and reward than the good plumber. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Only in-so-far as that respect depends on plumbing. People aren't only respected for their jobs. They may also be respected for their kindness, for their morality, etc. etc. In these respects, the worse plumber may be better off than the better one.

That's not valuing each individual for what they can do. It's giving greater absolute value to those who are more skilled in a particular area. You don't just want to give the good plumber and award for good plumbing. You are insisting the good plumber ought to have greater wealth, social respect,etc., etc. than the worse plumber.

Yes it is - it's simply admitting that one does better work than the other, and therefore he earns more than the other one. Money is simply the way society values the work - of course society and other people prefer the best work if this is possible.

Take Augistino's position here. He views it as just seeing back and thinking about nothing, of holding no point of view, of refraining from where his ethical commentary is not needed. — TheWillowOfDarkness

No, but I attempt to evacuate my predisposition, and try to look at things from the point of view of others. It makes me realise that everyone wants to have their views respected, and to be able to live life as they want to. Therefore, I realise the importance of respecting different ways of life and different cultures so long as they respect mine. My land, my rules, your land, your rules :)

That tends to happen naturally anyway. Are you just promoting meritocracy? Flesh that out for other aspects of life in addition to work. How is the superior plumber treated legally? — Marchesk

Yes I would agree with a form of meritocracy. As legal matters have very little to do with plumbing, he is treated equally. He is no more right to swindle his clients than the worse off plumber is for example.

Not if you are respecting each individual for their abilities. To say what you are is to give more absolute value to the better plumber. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Yes, I do give him a greater absolute value, but only in terms of plumbing. All of his life doesn't resume to plumbing, and therefore I do not claim that in what consists all of his life he is worse off than the best plumber, merely only in that which concerns plumbing.

It is to say the better plumber ought to be respected while the worse on ought not be.

False. It is to say that the better plumber is to be MORE respected than the worse plumber when it comes to plumbing only.

I will agree with Augistino in one sense. Societies do determine what the fundamental values are. I happen to grow in a society where equality, justice and tolerance are promoted. But I could have grown up in Sparta. So from an absolute point of view, how does anyone say which values are best? That's kind of disturbing. As it stands though, the West has the power and influence to make the world in their image, and so those values are the ones which will win out. I say that's good, but with an understanding that it's my modern Western preference for those particular values. — Marchesk

Bingo. I disagree about being "good" part, but the rest is very well put! :)

Nope. Since this plumber is not as good, doing that would be to insist they needed to have more than the abilities they have. It is to give the better plumber more absolute value. The worse plumber is think the MUST, as a person, be a great plumber like the other guy, else they have failed as an individual. If each individual is respected for their own abilities, it must be alright for the worse plumber to be worse. — TheWillowOfDarkness

But it's reasonable for the best plumber to be more respected than the worse one. He should be more respected, why else did he work and put all the effort to be the best for? Otherwise he should just have thrown up his hand, done a mediocre job, and leave it like that. He'd have a much easier time doing a mediocre job afterall. So yes - the worse plumber should always aspire to the better one, and seek to develop his skills (something that is not impossible), in order to become better than he currently is, and perhaps even better than his colleague.

I don't know. Seems like the tech billionaires did alright for themselves. Bill Gates was the richest person in the world for how long? How influential are companies like Google and Facebook? — Marchesk

Yes - but that is simply because technology (esp. computers) is a relatively new and young industry, which only relatively rich and developed societies could have proper access to. (hence a priori it was restricted for much of the time to the Western world, esp. the US) Try to do the same in plumbing, or making jeans, or pretty much any other industry, and you'll have quite a big problem in a country like the U.S. It would be much easier to become rich from jeans in a less developed country - that is why people like Amancio Ortega, Giorgio Armani, etc. come from the war-torn, relatively less developed (at the time) continent of Europe.

This is contradiction. When each individual is accepted in terms of their ability, there is no-one to aspire too because that would be to covert what one was not. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Yes, I, being a plumber, can aspire to another plumber whose plumbing is better than mine. There is no contradiction there.

It would be for the best plumber to think, in absolute terms, the best lawyer was more valuable because they were the best lawyer rather then the best plumber — TheWillowOfDarkness

No it wouldn't. The best plumber would know that, in terms of plumbing, he is the best, better than the best lawyer. In terms of law, of course the best lawyer is better than he. There is no "best" independent of context; best is context specific.

As quite a few on the Left have been at pains to point out (all that stuff on Colonialism and Western Imperialism and the damage it caused to so many indigenous peoples, the damage inflicted by modern Western Imperialism and globalisation, etc.,etc.). — TheWillowOfDarkness

Yes, nevertheless, these very same leftists send NGOs and money in the Middle East to educate Muslim women how to be Western, because being Western is clearly the right thing to be for the whole world! ;)

But in most societies it's already the case that people can find all sorts of ways to end up better off than others financially, in status quo, or other ways. A free and equal society gives people the most opportunity to do this, whereas more stratified societies tend to put barriers in place for ambitious individuals born to the wrong class, ethnicity, gender or circumstances. — Marchesk

I disagree with this. A "free and equal" society gives everyone good opportunities to become average. But if someone wants to be truly great, he's much better off in a stratified society, where the opportunities for big gains, big advances, etc. are much greater.

If I want to become moderately rich, a "free and equal" society is good. But if I want to become immoderately rich, extremely rich - then such a society places more constraints on me than its opposite.

So you think people should be required to socialize with you even if they can't stand your views? I think people should be free to socialize with whom they want. — Marchesk

No, as they can't be required to do so. Therefore I believe that the system which encourages them to ostracize me, and believe absolutely that they have the correct values, and I don't, is wrong. A system which encourages epistemic humility, on the other hand, is to be preferred.

Better than others in what way, though? Athletically, intellectually, better at making money, better at exploiting and manipulating, being more beautiful, being the right skin color, being born to the right family, etc? How are you going to define the criteria for who is better? — Marchesk

Better in any of these ways. Not better in absolute terms, since there is no way to decide if the best plumber is better than the best lawyer :)

You're not being oppressed just because you end up with a minority opinion that most people dislike. — Marchesk

This doesn't follow, because I will be oppressed in social terms, I will be treated as a social outcast, with whom no one wants to be associated with. So therefore, this is necessarily intolerant towards me, since it acts as a way to marginalise me.

If we don't, then we have an over-class of folks who take advantage of those who are below them -- and I don't blame them, of course, because that's only human nature -- but we don't have equality until people in the underclass actually come together and fight. — Moliere

Well, it's inevitable for some people to be better than others. Instead of making everyone equally bad, why not allow those who are better to pull the rest, as much as possible towards where they are? And for those who are worse to have something to aspire to?

There isn't any such thing, except as we decide there are intrinsic rights. My opinion is that deciding there are makes for a better world for everyone in it, so we might as well act like there is such a thing. — Marchesk

I disagree for example that "everyone being equal" is a good thing. What will happen with the millions of people who, like me, also disagree? Will we be oppressed for it?

Who are you to claim so? — darthbarracuda

No one, but keep in mind, I'm not the one making a claim here. I'm stating a fact, which is that we don't have any rights by Nature. If we did, then we should expect Nature herself to have a mechanism to assure us those rights.

I think this a massively sweeping claim. The left presumably believes these fundamental values are intrinsic rights to every human being. So of course they are going to be intolerant to the right and others who dismiss many of these values. They are intolerant of intolerance, intolerant of backwards thinking. — darthbarracuda

True, not all leftists would be like this. However, I disagree that these are fundamental values and intrinsic rights. Who are they to claim so? As far as I'm concerned, the only rights a man has by birth are the same rights a tiger has - which are not many. It is society which grants man any other rights that he has, and man owes it to his community for having them. Thus it is man's duty to support his community which has provided for him while he couldn't provide for himself - and it is also his duty to remember that if it wasn't for his community he'd be in no better or worse state than a tiger is. Hence, for the left to claim that there are "intrinsic rights" is nonsense, unless of course we believe in a God who has granted these intrinsic rights. Mother Nature certainly has not :)

This is a funny thing to say, considering you said you are leaning to the right (which has history of rolling tanks into countries that don't necessarily want them). — darthbarracuda

To counter threats, yes. And yes, there were also mistakes in this, that's inevitable.

This well end well. *Pulls up chair, waits on Landru to join discussion.* — Marchesk

Is Landru the de facto Commie of TPF? :P

The world we live in has been transformed by the creativity and labor of mankind. We live in a world of technology. — darthbarracuda

Reeks of Marx!

Obviously a fleshlight is not a "naturally" occurring thing, since it is built by a human. But the fact that it is even possible, in this universe, to build a fleshlight, strikes me as sort of remarkable. — darthbarracuda

Ahh yes, indeed, what a great wonder of the world :P !

But this does bug me a bit. It does kind of seem like the universe is "designed" to be utilized. It's not perfect, to be sure, but neither is it a blank slate that we can't do anything with. — darthbarracuda

Either this, or otherwise we have evolved to be extremely adept at using the Universe :)

Agreed with your comments towards SX :)

I guess it depends on what is meant by "mental hygiene ". For me ethics has nothing to do with "optimisation", this notion reeks of 'capital', ethics is all about learning to live well (that is relaxed and free from undue anxiety) in the very midst of the shit. — John

Well, I'm not sure if living relaxed and free from anxiety is a worthy goal anymore (in-so-far as I see this as an impossibility given human nature). I think if we had achieved this state where we would all be equal, where we all had equal opportunities, where everyone had access to equal amounts of resources, where people didn't have to struggle, and there was no place for anxiety anymore... I would find such a world totally unbearable to live in. I'd much rather die than live in such a world. Life has taste simply because things are unequal and there is struggle. Fighting for equality and all is a worthy goal, but actually achieving it would be the greatest horror. To think that I can do nothing to get ahead of my fellow man is to me incomprehensible. Even the games we play, we keep scores and have a winner and a loser because otherwise they wouldn't be fun anymore.

But philosophy, especially ethics, is largely about mental hygiene and optimisation. What else could it be about?

Think and Grow Rich, and other self-aggrandizing shit is shit precisely because it does not attempt to question its assumptions.

I agree, your criticism is correct. I stand corrected.

Thus, the goal is to maximize your [future] time spent experiencing pleasure. — darthbarracuda

No. The goal is merely to have pleasure now. That is my concern, not "future" pleasure which doesn't exist. It's a moment by moment mastery.

Please note that you are potentially endangering the lives of people who cannot get immunized. — darthbarracuda

Hm?

When I listen to a song I enjoy, presumably I assume you would agree that I am experiencing pleasure.

Stopping the song and turning off my music player would not be something I desire, because I enjoy the prolonged experience of the song. The song is pleasurable over a course of several minutes. — darthbarracuda

Yes but you feel pleasure in the moment. Therefore your aim is to feel pleasure right now. The fact that you add up the minutes afterwards, and think "oh, I've felt pleasure for 10 mins" is not itself pleasurable. Therefore this does not follow:

This means that pleasure can be, and should be, (under your [vague] hedonism) maximized and measured by how long a pleasurable experience is and the intensity of this experience. — darthbarracuda

Instead, what follows is that you must strive such that every single moment you feel pleasure. That is the goal. Not that you accumulate the maximum number of pleasurable moments, since the accumulation itself adds nothing to your pleasure and is not a pleasure in and of itself.

We make judgement calls (i.e. what we should do in a situation) often by predicting how long a certain experience will last and the intensity of this experience, and whether or not the cost to experience this experience is worth it. For example, buying a fifty-dollar ice cream cone would be absurdly irresponsible, because you would be using a rather large amount of money for a simple pleasure that lasts but a few minutes. — darthbarracuda

The length of the experience itself is not the source of pleasure. Neither does one get more pleasure because one felt it over a longer time. You feel pleasure in the moment, therefore pleasure can only exist at the moment when you feel it, hence pleasure just cannot add up.

And we decide to get immunization shots because, although they do indeed hurt, they only hurt for a short amount of time and the intensity is not high enough for us to fear, while at the same time we are doing much good because we will not get sick in the future. — darthbarracuda

This is factually wrong to begin with. Many people (such as myself) have always refused immunisation shots. Neither are the scientific findings strong enough to support them, in my humble opinion.

I think there is a misunderstanding here. I'm not saying that Aristotle argues that a man can BECOME blessed and happy in a short day, and in here I agree. However, once someone is blessed and happy, that is a quality of their character, and it is not made better or worse by its prolongation in time. That is something that, as far as I see, is not contradictory to the Aristotelian vision.

If I implied this momentary notion, I didn't mean to. Aristotle expressly argues that the state of character is accumulated over a lifetime, and is careful to speak of living well 'in a complete life'. He doesn't mean there's a calculus over a life, though. He means that experience over a complete life, and the deliberation you undertake based upon that experience, prepares you for the moments when your choice of action will matter to you, and to others. — mcdoodle

No doubt - but the value exists in the moment, not in the future.

That is a bit fairytale sounding. A lot of time other circumstances are available, but they were not ranked as the most preferable. Again, I refer you back to the idea that one may suppress their preference, it doesn't mean they weren't frustrated or disappointed. — schopenhauer1

But surely, if new possibilities open up, they should be investigated, otherwise one may miss a possibility which is actually preferable to the one which one is currently holding on to.

Perhaps no matter how hard you try, it just doesn't work. Same with relationships, etc. etc. — schopenhauer1

How do you know this prior to trying? Again, it just betrays a lack of confidence, and self-doubt, and lack of courage to pursue one's ambitions.

Right, and this is not easy as you say. You just moved the goal post from the actual achievement being hard to the development of wisdom being hard. If one is the key to the other, they are both hard to achieve. — schopenhauer1

Sure, I never said excellency would be easy. If salvation were at hand, as Spinoza wrote, everyone would achieve it. But it is as difficult as it is rare.

This is what people do. It doesn't mean that the original preference wasn't more preferable. — schopenhauer1

Surely it doesn't. But to have a preference for that which is impossible is just silly. It is the sign of a mind that doesn't function properly, and it is alike having a preference to have been a fish, or a lion, or why not a rock? So if whatever you have a preference for becomes impossible, then how can you still have a preference for it?

This just sounds like a way to impress people. It won't matter once you're dead. — schopenhauer1

But I'm not doing that to impress anyone, or because it would matter after I'm dead. It matters in the moment that I do that. I feel better if I do that, then if I don't.

Ah what an excellent thread! So many people have GREAT points here, it's such a pleasure to read. @darthbarracuda, I think you have attracted attention to something very important, namely in investigating the relationship between desire and pleasure. In a way, it could be argued that pleasure is merely the satisfaction of desire, and it is that that we are really after. Pleasure serves, as @Marchesk has argued, merely as a subjective indicator.

We can imagine being hurt by the presence of pleasure if we do not desire it. For example, our husband/wife offering sex right after one of our parents died will not probably make us happy. Neither would someone having sex with us by force as @darthbarracuda has argued; unless of course we secretly harbour a fantasy (read desire) to get raped, in which case we may enjoy it, even greatly enjoy it, provided that our sense of morality permits it, and would not get in the way of the actualisation of our fantasy.

I think @The Great Whatever has hit the nail on the head with life not being a score-board, as well as with pleasure not accumulating, and with the idea of maximising pleasure not being necessitated. Contra @darthbarracuda, it may be that the enemy of pleasure is more pleasure in certain instances ;) . TGW's ideas instead force us to refocus on the present moment, which is truly the only moment we ever have, instead of attempting to judge life as a whole, which is indeed incoherent.

And now, we finally get to @mcdoodle who has argued along with Aristotle that excellence is the goal of life, and for humans, this consists in character building (virtue), which is not accumulated over a life-time, but rather is something that exists in the moment. As such, virtue is what best enables one to enjoy life in the present moment; it is the skill with which one handles the present. Hence, as TGW tells us, ethics is not about specific ways in which to live your life, it's not a self-help guide. It is, I would say, a character building act, which ensures that one has the right character (as opposed to rule book) to handle best different situations.

So what the hell does it mean to live well then? We might live moment by moment, but we're constantly thinking about the past and the future, and we make choices based on that. — Marchesk

Maybe it's to think about the past/present only so-much as we need it in order to make a decision, and the rest of the time live focused on the present. Living in the present, and doing so with excellence, is, I think, a good life. Nothing more could be added at that point. Extending that life, or shortening it can do nothing to take away its excellence, which is a quality that is independent of time, just as a geometric figure being a circle is independent of the length of its radius.

What I was thinking with the OPs question is that, if one is a hedonist, how might one go about having as much pleasure as they can with as little suffering? — Marchesk

I think this would be the wrong question because it assumes that pleasure and suffering accumulate in time. A better question would be how to have pleasure right now? To which no specific answer could be given. I could say you go about it with skill. But that will be of no help.

Of course, the problem is that if your philosophy is bad, what you decide to do will be self-contradictory on its own terms. In the Socratic tradition, the focus moves away from 'evil' to ignorance. By removing our ignorance about what is good, we ipso facto remove our temptations and inclinations to do things that, by the very standards we couch them in, make no sense or don't work. If something is actually bad, understanding why it's bad will destroy the temptation to do it. — The Great Whatever

Hence, TGW, even you are forced to admit here of philosophy as a therapy, which does indeed lead us to the good life - similar, but not exactly the same as self-help :)

Also, is "to live it well" a state of being (a status) or is it perhaps a dynamic process of constant change and adaptations? I feel it is the latter; thus making any fixed points of status (including what one believe one knows as what is good) when it comes to notions of value are shortsighted, as it would have to 'disinclude' the accumulation of any information/experiences that might cause a change in what one deems (attributes/asserts) to be what they 'know' as good. — Mayor of Simpleton

Ahh Mayor! We're very close to agreeing here, but not quite... Indeed, I agree that "to live it well" is a dynamic process of adaptation, in the words of the Daoists, a way without a way, and a path without a path. But perfecting this process requires principles, which unfortunately would have to be fixed. While the strategies/techniques/tactics used at different points in time need to always change, and one cannot rely on the same techniques for all time (hence a way without a way, a doing without a doing), this does not include principles, whose nature is entirely negative, and whose role is entirely regulative (hence why the way without a way is still a way). Negative in-so-far as they do not arbitrate between possibilities (but merely rule out impossibilities), and regulative in-so-far as they focus the mind clearly and distinctly on real possibilities and away from impossibilities which could distract and confuse it, and thus render it less efficient. Principles are free to be fixed since they are not bound by the conditions of being true (or pointing to any particular real). They are merely those things which regulate and focus the mind on that which is true (or real). For example, Marcus Aurelius states:

"On the occasion of everything that causes you sadness, remember to use this "dogma": not only is this not a misfortune, but it is a piece of good fortune for you to bear up under it courageously"

Notice the statement doesn't arbitrate between possibilities, as any negative actuality necessarily entails the possibility of one practicing to bear it courageously. Also notice the statement plays a regulative role for the mind; refocusing it on the possibilities that can always be implemented, and away from those which are impossible - such as for example, remaining sad and thinking over and over how misfortune could have been prevented.

As such, principles cannot be questioned, once one has understood their essence and function. Principles are also tautologies at base, which are entirely empty. However, this emptiness plays a regulative role for the mind, hence they are useful and must not be given up.

But, having said this, principles are not enough. Strategies, techniques, tactics, etc. are also required to be a master at something. These latter are acquired empirically, through experience, while the latter are acquired rationally, through pure reason. However, both of them are necessary, with the former (principles) often becoming the factor which makes the difference at the highest levels of performance in any domain. However, principles don't necessarily have to be learned formally, and could indeed end up abstracted from experience, although this is slower.

I believe that Weltschmerz is roughly the result of a few possible occurrences:

1. The mind in question is full of doubt, lacking in ability, lacking in confidence, lacking in patience, and/or lacking in courage to tackle its ambitions (maybe because it's ambitions are too difficult to achieve), and therefore, afraid of failure and believing them to be impossible, doesn't even try. Instead it falls into disillusionment, and attempts to find an alternative, typically much simpler and easier to achieve, and attempts to be satisfied with that, instead of accepting its ambitions and seeking to fulfill them. The result is termed Weltschmerz.

2. The same can also result from an overbearing of certain cultural moral values, which prevent one from attempting to satisfy or pursue their real ambitions - thereby resulting in disillusionment and attempts to change their desire. For example, it is very likely that a world-conqueror in today's world, especially in the West, feels the bearing of our cultural morality which suggests that it is wrong to mobilise others as means to one's own end.

3. The mind lacks ambition, and/or imagination to grow ambition, and lacking ambition, finds itself bored with the world, as everything it desires is easily achievable.

As Spinoza has written, man's essence is striving/desire. Of course one whose essence OR intellect is currently deficient must necessarily project onto the world this deficiency. To one who functions correctly, one's intellect is used as a means to fuel and fulfill one's striving. Strength of intellect guarantees great ambitions which can never be exhausted, as well as means to strive towards the achievement of these ambitions. For such a one, life is indeed a journey, full of pain and full of joy, a challenge and a way to pleasantly surprise oneself by what one can achieve.

As I stated in the other thread:
Even if pleasure is the only inherent good:
It can certainly be stated that:
-pleasures can change with circumstance.
-preferred pleasures can often be frustrated or not achieved
-some pleasures lead to pain
-preferred pleasures are not distributed evenly in human lives.

Perennial strategies for dealing with non-evenly distributed pleasures include:
-trying not to be attached to achieving pleasures
-trying to aim one's focus on something different than one's preferences for pleasure

Possible complications with strategies:
-trying not to be attached to achieving pleasures may be an impossibility in terms (except if one has conditions like anhedonia or are on certain drugs perhaps?)
-trying to aim one's focus on something different than one's preferences for pleasures may be an impossibility. One may SUPPRESS one's pursuit of one's preferences for pleasures, but it may not really get rid of one's frustration. One can conceive of a sage that suppresses all pursuits of pleasure, but then even this is a preference for the pleasure of not having pleasure, and this too can be frustrated thus going back to the idea that not all suffering is distributed evenly. — schopenhauer1

Why not rather find a way to achieve what you want? That requires intelligence and work, but who says it can't be done? It certainly took intelligence, courage, and work for Alexander the Great to build his empire... most would have said it's impossible when asked. Sure after you achieve what you want, you'll want something else. Why is that a problem? Just employ your intelligence again, and find a way to achieve it. This is the lot allotted to us mortals.

So my points are as follows:

1. In most situations, what one desires is not impossible to achieve, nevertheless, most lack the wisdom to determine this. Hence it is important to develop such wisdom.
2. If it is possible, then one must develop the right strategies, and find the right tactics/techniques of implementation to achieve their aims. All this requires knowledge of the right principles, which can help guide one and focus one's mind on the important aspects at hand.
3. If it is not possible, then one must consider what possibilities are opened up by this impossibility, and hence pursue the possibility that they deem best, using the same way outlined in 2.
4. If the situation is inescapable, and absolutely nothing can be done, one being guaranteed to effectively be killed or gravely impaired by the situation, then one must face it with courage and virtue, taking care to maintain the last freedom one still has.

Yes - I've edited my previous post. Even in the case when it becomes impossible to achieve a desire, because of that impossibility, new possibilities that were never possible before open up.

Some people don't have the capacity (even with effort), or do not have the right contingent conditions. Saying that just putting in more effort will make anything happen is naive at best and dishonest at worst. — schopenhauer1

Many things seem impossible to the untrained. Of course, some things really are impossible. That is why the wisdom to distinguish the two is required. Different things are to be done in both cases.

Yes, but why did he become unsatisfied and remained attached to his ideal of a romantic relationship? Why did he go on preferring it? And if he indeed preferred it, why did he not mobilise his intelligence, and train in order to make it a reality? Perhaps he lacked intelligence, perhaps he lacked courage, who knows. But the fault doesn't lie with the world, it lies with him. Either due to lack of ability, or due to obstinacy in clinging to the desire of something that was unfit to his nature.

Of course there are tragedies, which are bad and can't be avoided, but even in those cases there are good things that would not have been POSSIBLE (note that I did not say happen) lest for the tragedy.

Life is certainly non-ideal. — schopenhauer1

This cannot be determined for the reasons I have illustrated before. But if you require yet another argument, here it goes. A man cannot experience all of life, and cannot exhaust all its possibilities. Hence, to say that life is non-ideal means by implication that one has determined with certainty that life's possibilities hold nothing good. But how can one make such a determination outside the bounds of experience? And even if one could, how can one go forth and attempt to fight for this "negatively defined" ideal, which is, in truth, incoherent and unimaginable to begin with - how can he judge the world in front of this standard, which is completely impossible? I will respond about world-weariness in the other thread :)

http://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/171/on-weltschmerz#Item_3

In both cases, meaning was occurring in people's lives. One through developing a strong relationship with an intimate partner, the other through the struggle to overcome the fact that one will not always get what one wants (even something as basic and desirable as romantic intimacy). Now, a cynic might say "hey, meaning was obtained in both cases, it's all equal". But is it really? I mean, yeah the second scenario did provide for a meaningful life but, was it something they would have preferred? — schopenhauer1

So what's the point? A man cannot drink all the vodka in the world. One has the opportunity to enjoy a great sensual relationship because he has forfeited the opportunity to become a great philosopher, or a world-conqueror, opportunities that simply aren't available to him precisely because he's busy enjoying that relationship instead of preparing to do anything else. Who is to say which is preferable? One cannot know if becoming a great philosopher is better than having a great sensual relationship, or the other way around, unless they can do both. But nobody can do everything there is to do. Therefore no one can know which activity is better than any other. However, we are each constrained by circumstances... the circumstances of one demand that he be in a sensual relationship, the circumstances of another that he discover the secrets of nature, the circumstances of yet another that he become a leader of men. Each shall go forth and do his duty, which is preferable to wondering about which is the better path - the latter option will ensure that no path is taken, and hence even the possibility of the good forfeited.

I don't think it's necessary. These are my own Cyrenaic biases showing, but I think a good praxis can be one that doesn't make any use of abstract goals. Rather, acting toward the future is itself a kind of moment-by-moment mastery. In any case, it's not the job of an ethical doctrine to tell what to do: as I've argued, I don't think this demand even makes sense. Nothing can tell you what to do, only doing something can make you do something. — The Great Whatever

I disagree. That is why we have principles, in arts as diverse as love-making, seduction, or making war. We use them to guide our actions. A principle itself can be formless, and thus allow for the infinity of techniques available to be included under it. However, keeping a principle in mind, allows the mind to be focused on what is necessary for achieving one's goal.

In fact, I would go forth and employ @180 Proof's concept of metaphysics being a determination of elements of the "empty set" to say that the role a principle plays is simply to determine and focus the mind on the possible and useful and away from the impossible and useless :) Without principle, the mind is confused, and not efficient.

Do you think that something that is "meaningful" trumps what is good? Why or why not? — schopenhauer1

I think the question is wrong. Something that is "good" in my eyes, must necessarily include the "meaningful".

I don't think these are important questions. What matters is what you are going to do, not what you should do, since even if you resolve the latter, you won't have taken even a step toward resolving the former (since you can just do what you shouldn't anyway), which is all that actually matters. And as for what you are going to do, it is a category error to ask for a philosophical position that says what you are going to do, since by definition only actually doing it can decide that. Actions, so to speak, do not follow from philosophical doctrines, and so it is a mistake to ask a philosophical doctrine to make you do something. — The Great Whatever

Sure only actually doing it will in the end decide, but that doesn't mean that one shouldn't have goals for which to strive, and deciding on those goals is an enterprise of thought, not of doing.

So then, how ought I to decide what I should and shouldn't do? Afterall, that is the whole point of ethics, to make me in a better position to take decisions.

But that certainly doesn't add up. If I know that I can take a really powerful drug today, which will make me feel a lot of pleasure, but I will feel extremely sick for the next 5 days, should I take it? Granted that I know I will live for the next five days, I am going to knowingly cause myself a lot of pain. That certainly must be stupid.