Already done. Life has its ups and downs, with or without medication.

Oh, no doubt, I saw some of your advice. It's just that some of us aren't exactly "normal" when it comes to neurobiology and have problems with severe anxiety, panic, depression, etc.

Easier said than done, unfortunately. :(

Basically, what I posted previously is a culmination of a shit ton of thoughts mulling around my mind that required a catharsis to relieve the tension. I understand completely that most of this is not exactly the best philosophy ever. But, like most here (I assume), philosophy tends to be something that we are drawn to automatically, by default, and it just so happens that the philosophical thoughts that I tend to have are that of skepticism of the validity of all the philosophical thoughts that me and everyone else has. And it is frustrating when, at times, it seems like these kinds of questions are either overlooked or taken for granted.

Examples are: Is metaphysics possible (not that metaphysics is not meaningful [logical positivism; and we all know how that turned out], but rather, are we even able to make metaphysical claims, to make progress in metaphysics, etc, or are our brains just too limited to make any substantial theses?), what is the "point" behind philosophy (thanks for the great answer, , btw), how do we get from language to the world (what is the correlation, how is language a stable structure for philosophical theses), is it rational to hold any philosophical position, is there progress in philosophy, are philosophical questions merely linguistic misunderstandings, etc.

Wittgenstein has been a saving grace for me; his conception of philosophy as therapeutic clarification, the distinction between what is a question and what is an answer (Witty would have said the answer is within the question), the rejection of the academic philosophical atmosphere, etc...Kant too.

I definitely like 's answer, that there is no "one way" to do philosophy, there is just "a" way of doing philosophy (like the distinctions between analytic, continental, pragmatic, and quietist philosophy).

I seem to recall reading something like this. Are you over at Reddit?

Now I am the master!

Thanks for posting this, I read it a while ago but mostly forgot about it.

I particularly like one of the comments on the article, which says that we need philosophy desperately because science has failed to produce rational thinking individuals.

Well, it went from a thread about having confidence in one's beliefs to explicitly theological semantics.

Perhaps we should make a different thread?

sanctity of human life — Hanover

Why is it that when someone runs out of arguments, this kind of cop out bullshit hand wave gets used?

The more I learn about conservative philosophy ideology, the more it seems like a group of people desperately clinging to the past for emotional stability. Perhaps this is why the Right tends to oppose evolution and global warming while attaching themselves to a romanticized idea of what life was like "in the good ol' days."

However, should we attempt to not latch on to any intellectual theory (scientific and philosophical alike), since it most likely is false?

Although I agree with your correspondence theory of truth, as I understand it there are two other major theories, pragmatism and coherentism. Pragmatism argues that what is true is what is useful/pragmatic. Coherentism argues that what is true is what makes coherent sense, that is, a certain proposition under scrutiny holds truth if it is coherent with other propositions.

I find that neither two objections are sufficient for defeating correspondence theory; in fact I think both of them end up utilizing correspondence whether they realize it or not.

For a pragmatist, what is true is what is useful. However, this means that a person who believes in god and finds great value in their religion would be said to hold a true belief, which to many others would strike them as irrational. For pragmatism, truth is inherently relative, which is quite unsettling. Furthermore, what is useful is very often what actually is the case (correspondence), so it seems like pragmatism simply is a facet of correspondence theory.

For a coherentist, what is conceptually harmonized is what is true. But this is problematic; the coherentist theory of truth is actually a theory of justification. The related, justifying propositions are exactly what we use as evidence for some proposition.

So there's my two cents. If I got any of this wrong, someone correct me.

I hate labels as well but they are useful for communication purposes.

Agreed.

Whoops, I meant to say that Pascal's Wager is the most convincing argument to have a belief in god.

If you don't find that the arguments theists (masquerading as deists most of the time) — Thorongil

Very well stated response in general, Thorongil, but especially this part. Nowhere do I see any adequate explanations for why the "first cause" must be external and somehow have its own personality while simultaneously not being under the influence of causal relations.

Atheism is much too strong of a position, in my tastes. Agnostic deism seems to be where I fit the best, at least currently.

Alright, here we go!

I particularly enjoyed the introduction, and how it highlighted how faith necessarily needs a rational basis. Not that I actually take faith to be a good thing or have faith in a deity, but I'll be charitable.

ARGUMENT #1: THE ARGUMENT FROM CHANGE

"Nothing changes itself. Apparently self-moving things, like animal bodies, are moved by desire or will—something other than mere molecules. And when the animal or human dies, the molecules remain, but the body no longer moves because the desire or will is no longer present to move it."

This is quite unscientific. These "desires" and "wills" come about from interacting molecules. Also, a chemical reaction occurring within a flask changes itself as the reaction goes underway. If we break down an object into its constituents, we might just find that some of them actually do change the overall consistency of the object. Granted, this seems like this requires an external catalyzing agent.

"Briefly, if there is nothing outside the material universe, then there is nothing that can cause the universe to change. But it does change. Therefore there must be something in addition to the material universe. But the universe is the sum total of all matter, space and time. These three things depend on each other. Therefore this being outside the universe is outside matter, space and time. It is not a changing thing; it is the unchanging Source of change."

I'm not convinced by the assertion that everything in the universe is under the influence of causality. Why is pantheism disregarded here? Why can't the causal agent be the universe itself?

Furthermore, how can an unchanging entity outside of the universe act in such a way that causes change? Would that require this unchanging entity to change? Sounds like this actuality is actually just logical necessary; it could not fail to happen. Which kind of goes against certain conceptions of god.

ARGUMENT #2: THE ARGUMENT FROM EFFICIENT CAUSALITY

Keep in mind that causality is by no means an uncontentious metaphysical topic.

"Existence is like a gift given from cause to effect. If there is no one who has the gift, the gift cannot be passed down the chain of receivers, however long or short the chain may be."

Agreed, although all this means is that there has to be some kind of actuality. Why this cannot be part of the universe is never explained.

"But notice: Given so many drunks, and given the steady ground beneath them, we can understand how their stumblings might cancel each other out, and how the group of them could remain (relatively) upright."

Why can't the concrete ground be seen as the source of actuality? Why can't we hypothesize the existence of a type of substance in the universe that chugs out causality?

All of these causality arguments are founded upon unsubstantiated claims of the the nature of the universe.

ARGUMENT #3: THE ARGUMENT FROM TIME AND CONTINGENCY

This section seems to operate under the assumption that contingency is possible. The fact that we can imagine the universe not being the way it is is no argument for any kind of contingent modality.

If we are to go the modality route, why not argue that all possible worlds exist? We can use David Lewis' modality, Derek Parfit's analysis, and possibly even modern physics to argue this.

ARGUMENT #4: THE ARGUMENT FROM DEGREES OF PERFECTION
"So we arrange some things in terms of more and less. And when we do, we naturally think of them on a scale approaching most and least."

A scale that depends purely on our own experiences. To say "dark" describes the "perfection of blackness" is disingenuous; there exist a huge spectrum of EM radiation outside of our vision.

"Now when we think of the goodness of things, part of what we mean relates to what they are simply as beings."

Why should we accept that "goodness" and "badness" exist objectively?

"Why? Because we apprehend at a deep (but not always conscious) level that being is the source and condition of all value; finally and ultimately, being is better than nonbeing."

Heh...I don't think that's exactly uncontentious.

ARGUMENT #5: THE ARGUMENT OF DESIGN

Just like any other teleological argument, this is just an argument from incredulity.

"The universe displays a staggering amount of intelligibility, both within the things we observe and in the way these things relate to others outside themselves. That is to say: the way they exist and coexist display an intricately beautiful order and regularity that can fill even the most casual observer with wonder."

No, it doesn't. In fact it exhibits a rather large amount of unintelligibility. Intelligibility stems from our own rationality, and it's quite obvious that our rationality is not exactly, well, perfect.

"The first premise is certainly true-even those resistant to the argument admit it. The person who did not would have to be almost pathetically obtuse. A single protein molecule is a thing of immensely impressive order; much more so a single cell; and incredibly much more so an organ like the eye, where ordered parts of enormous and delicate complexity work together with countless others to achieve a single certain end. Even chemical elements are ordered to combine with other elements in certain ways and under certain conditions. Apparent disorder is a problem precisely because of the overwhelming pervasiveness of order and regularity. So the first premise stands."

Bullshit. The argument fails to account for the great amount of time that the universe has been around for and can therefore exhibit "designed" tendencies through natural selection (both biological and non-biological).

"If all this order is not in some way the product of intelligent design—then what? Obviously, it "just happened." Things just fell out that way "by chance."

"By chance" is seen as like the Boeing 747 gambit. Except it's completely wrong. Nothing just appears like this, it undergoes refining over a massive amount of time.

"In no way does it—can it—account for the ubiquitous order and intelligibility of nature. Rather, it presupposes order."

This screams of incredulity.

"Question 2: Maybe it is only in this region of the universe that order is to be found. Maybe there are other parts unknown to us that are completely chaotic—or maybe the universe will one day in the future become chaotic. What becomes of the argument then?
Reply: Believers and nonbelievers both experience the same universe. It is this which is either designed or not."

Incredulity. And perhaps this is only one of many possible universes.

ARGUMENT #6: THE KALAM ARGUMENT

"1Whatever begins to exist has a cause for its coming into being.
2The universe began to exist.
3Therefore, the universe has a cause for its coming into being.
Grant the first premise. (Most people—outside of asylums and graduate schools would consider it not only true, but certainly and obviously true.)"

Then perhaps the common sense reasoning is flawed. #1 may be argued against by quantum mechanics. #2 is unfounded: the "causality-dependent" universe "began" to exist, there's nothing to say that the "non-causality-dependent" universe was always around.

Therefore #3 is not necessarily true.

"Is the second premise true? Did the universe—the collection of all things bounded by space and time—begin to exist? This premise has recently received powerful support from natural science—from so-called Big Bang Cosmology."

This misunderstands the Big Bang theory of cosmology.

"It must somehow stand outside the limitations and constraints of space and time."

I'm not entirely sure how uncontentious this is. But it seems to me that we can postulate the existence of abstract objects that don't exist in the spatio-temporal world, and yet are still seen as "part" of the universe.

ARGUMENT #7: THE ARGUMENT FROM CONTINGENCY

"Therefore, what it takes for the universe to exist must transcend both space and time."

Why is has to be a god is not clear. Why a thing of pure actuality must be a god and must be "outside" of the universe is not clear.

"Question 1: But why should we call this cause "God"? Maybe there is something unknown that grounds the universe of change we live in.
Reply: True. And this "unknown" is God. What we humans know directly is this sensible changing world. We also know that there must exist whatever it takes for something to exist. Therefore, we know that neither this changing universe as a whole nor any part of it can be itself what it takes for the universe to exist. But we have now such direct knowledge of the cause of changing things. We know that there must exist a cause; we know that this cause cannot be finite or material—that it must transcend such limitations. But what this ultimate cause is in itself remains, so far, a mystery."

Oh, I see. Not really, though.

"But at least we would know what path of questioning to pursue; at least we would know that someone did it."

NO! At least, not necessarily. Again why this has to be a "someone" is not made clear. Screams of anthropomorphism to me.

ARGUMENT #8: THE ARGUMENT FROM THE WORLD AS AN INTERACTING WHOLE
I found this to be a little confusing. But I still got the incredulity-vibe from it. Discussion over this would be appreciated.

ARGUMENT #9: THE ARGUMENT FROM MIRACLES

"After all, to call some happening a miracle is to interpret it religiously. But to interpret it that way demands a context or setting which invites such interpretation. And part of this setting usually, though not always, involves a person whose moral authority is first recognized, and whose religious authority, which the miracle seems to confirm, is then acknowledged."

What if you reject moral and religious authoritarian figures?

"But miraculous events exist. Indeed, there is massive, reliable testimony to them across many times, places and cultures.
Therefore their cause exists.
And their only adequate cause is God.
Therefore God exists."

What a load of garbage. There are far more miracles attested in the past that ended up as being purely natural phenomenon.

ARGUMENT #10: THE ARGUMENT FROM CONSCIOUSNESS

"When we experience the tremendous order and intelligibility in the universe, we are experiencing something intelligence can grasp. Intelligence is part of what we find in the world. But this universe is not itself intellectually aware. As great as the forces of nature are, they do not know themselves."

Asserted but not justified. Surely a conscious universe is just as "crazy" as the existence of a god.

"Either this intelligible universe and the finite minds so well suited to grasp it are the products of intelligence, or both intelligibility and intelligence are the products of blind chance."

BECAUSE OUR MINDS ARE THE PRODUCT OF EVOLUTION. IF THEY COULD NOT ACCURATELY PORTRAY THE UNIVERSE, WE WOULD HAVE DIED OUT.

The incredulity is becoming incredulous.

" If naturalism is true, Lewis argued, then it seems to leave us with no reason for believing it to be true; for all judgments would equally and ultimately be the result of nonrational forces."

Incredulity once again. Our opinions of how our thought works has no influence on how it actually is. It's not as if our thought is a simple reaction, either.

ARGUMENT #11: THE ARGUMENT FROM TRUTH

"Our limited minds can discover eternal truths about being."

Can they?

None of this argument makes any sense. Why truths cannot just reside in a temporary mind as beliefs is beyond me.

ARGUMENT #12: THE ARGUMENT FROM THE ORIGIN OF THE IDEA OF GOD

"This idea could not have been caused by ourselves, because we know ourselves to be limited and imperfect, and no effect can be greater than its cause."

I beg to differ about perfection. Rubbish. How are we measuring "greater than"? A little firecracker can produce a brilliant explosion.

And let's be honest here, the conception of god does not stem from "ideas of perfection". It stems from not knowing what the hell something is, and then rationalization take place afterwards.

ARGUMENT #13: THE ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT

I can safely say (as the authors themselves do in the introduction) that this is a very flawed argument. It's not taken seriously today.

ARGUMENT #14: THE MORAL ARGUMENT

The authors claim that if ethical subjectivism is proven false, then this argument succeeds in the first premise. Not only is this a simplification of what I see to be the entire field of ethics, but their argument against ethical subjectivism isn't even that compelling.:

"(Many think they are, and say they are—until they suffer violence or injustice. In that case they invariably stand with the rest of us in recognizing that certain things ought never to be done.)"

Quite anecdotal, not to mention that perhaps this isn't what would happen all the time?

The argument is begging the question.

ARGUMENT #15: THE ARGUMENT FROM CONSCIENCE

The authors assert that ethical subjectivism is popular today. I was not aware and don't know of any references that could help me with this. In fact, I thought it was rather unpopular.

"How can I be absolutely obligated by something less than me—for example, by animal instinct or practical need for material survival?"

VERY EASILY: see, empathy and the survival of a group of animals.

"If we are the products of a good and loving Creator, this explains why we have a nature that discovers a value that is really there. But how can atheists explain this? For if atheists are right, then no objective moral values can exist. Dostoyevsky said, "If God does not exist, everything is permissible." Atheists may know that some things are not permissible, but they do not know why."

Sounds like the Euthyphro Dilemma to me. Why is god seen as good? Why is whatever god does, good? And why is the Dostoyevsky quote seen as a "bad" thing? Again, it is begging the question.

"The only source of absolute moral obligation left is something superior to me. This binds my will, morally, with rightful demands for complete obedience."

ayy, that's scary stuff right there.

"Morality exists only on the level of persons, spirits, souls, minds, wills—not mere molecules."

I was not aware of this. Nor do I find it convincing.

ARGUMENT #16: THE ARGUMENT FROM DESIRE

"Therefore there must exist something more than time, earth and creatures, which can satisfy this desire.
This something is what people call "God" and "life with God forever."

This implies that god programmed us to be obedient and wanting his companionship. Which is quite ridiculous and scary.

I like Zapffe's theory that the universe is unable to provide for the existential needs of a human being. We literally became too smart for our own good and our reality became a shambled, desolate desert.

Also, I would be willing to bet that if someone were in bliss, they might not care about god.

I will contend though that this is one of the arguments that made me think a little. But again, it's basically just incredulity and sourced from an inflated ego.

" This denial may take two forms. First, one may say, "Although I am not perfectly happy now, I believe I would be if only I had ten million dollars, a Lear jet, and a new mistress every day." The reply to this is, of course, "Try it. You won't like it." It's been tried and has never satisfied. In fact, billions of people have performed and are even now performing trillions of such experiments, desperately seeking the ever-elusive satisfaction they crave. For even if they won the whole world, it would not be enough to fill one human heart."

So, Buddhism or Schopenhauer. Neither affirm the existence of a god.

This desire can be explained by the hedonistic treadmill, that resulted from evolution.

Furthermore, many of tried the whole "god thing" and found it unfulfilling.

ARGUMENT #17: THE ARGUMENT FROM AESTHETIC EXPERIENCE

Lame.

ARGUMENT #18: THE ARGUMENT FROM RELIGIOUS EXPERIENCE

"It is inconceivable that so many people could have been so utterly wrong about the nature and content of their own experience."

No, it's not. All it shows is that humanity has a history of bad rationality.

Once again, incredulity at the fact that our religious experiences are caused by temporal lobe lesions.

"You cannot say ahead of time how it will affect you. But it is evidence; it has persuaded many; and it cannot be ignored. "

Many people have experienced ghosts...this does not mean ghosts exist.

ARGUMENT #19: THE COMMON CONSENT ARGUMENT

"True enough, it is conceivable that this side of our nature is doomed to frustration; it is thinkable that those millions upon millions who claim to have found the Holy One who is worthy of reverence and worship were deluded. But is it likely?"

Probably.

"It seems far more likely that those who refuse to believe are the ones suffering from deprivation and delusion—like the tone-deaf person who denies the existence of music, or the frightened tenant who tells herself she doesn't hear cries of terror and distress coming from the street below and, when her children awaken to the sounds and ask her, "Why is that lady screaming, Mommy?" tells them, "Nobody's screaming: it's just the wind, that's all. Go back to sleep."

Sucks to be the ones who don't get to experience this great god, huh?

"This is not really a naturalistic explanation of religious belief. It is no more than a statement, dressed in psychological jargon, that religious belief is false. You begin from the assumption that God does not exist. Then you figure that since the closest earthly symbol for the Creator is a father, God must be a cosmic projection of our human fathers. But apart from the assumption of atheism, there is no compelling evidence at all that God is a mere projection.
In fact, the argument begs the question."

The irony!

ARGUMENT #20: PASCAL'S WAGER

I'll admit it, this is the most convincing "argument" for god. Basically, believe in god to save your own ass or get a cool reward after you die.

" If there is a God of infinite goodness, and he justly deserves my allegiance and faith, I risk doing the greatest injustice by not acknowledging him."

If god wants my obedience, he can ask for it. Nobody deserves that, though. Not with suffering.

"The Wager cannot—or should not—coerce belief. But it can be an incentive for us to search for God, to study and restudy the arguments that seek to show that there is Something—or Someone—who is the ultimate explanation of the universe and of my life."

Key word: Something. Not necessarily someone, and most definitely not anything that is worthy of worship.

Alright, cool, that was fun! It sure looks like most of these arguments are either begging the question or arguing from incredulity, or both.

I am. Why?

This is where the real evaluation takes place in my view; that is, what (ultimately) groundless presuppositions are the most plausible? — John

Sweet, this rings very true with me. Philosophy, in my opinion, should be about untangling the crap in our minds and clarifying the basic suppositions of life. It's when grand theories begin to be stated that things get way too twisted and out of touch with reality.

Interesting response, Mongrel. I share your annoyance with a lot of philosophical "deep-shit" philosophy that hides behind sophisticated word-language. As I like to say, I hate quasi-sophisticated, pretentious fucks. Q.E.D. Why on earth it's so hard just to say what you're trying to say without using a thesaurus is beyond me.

But maybe it's because I'm stupid. :-d

Or maybe it's because some of these philosophers realized they made a mistake pursuing a degree in philosophy and now have to compensate. Or maybe it's because reason (and intimidating wordplay) is too often used to justify bullshit.

Take twice as long reading it than should be required. Thanks Quine.

I got that impression as well. As much as I enjoy writing good polemical rhetoric, it's a pain in the ass when someone writing a professional article does so.

Of course, there is no "endgame" in philosophy, no final solution. Anyone who expects such a thing is bound to be disappointed. — John

I think this applies to anything, really. I mean, what's the final goal of, say, astronomy? To capture every single star in the universe? To know everything about the cosmos? Is that even possible?!

Instead, practitioners of whatever are interested in small goals to keep our interest. Basically, life itself is one glorious waste of time. Philosophy is just one of the ways we pass it.

Now that I'm thinking about it more, it's really not that big of a deal, especially if you don't accept multiple universes. But if you did, you would just have to specify that what you claim is true is true in this particular universe because it may be false in another.

Presumably it would contradict certain modalities.

I'm sympathetic to the view, since it's central to trope theory, which I'm also sympathetic to.

I don't know if I quite agree with your definition of truth. I would say that what is true is what state of affairs obtains. A state of affairs makes truth by obtaining, a proposition bears truth by referencing this state of affair. Might just be some technical jargon but then again, just saying that "truth is what is there" isn't necessarily enough; I could postulate that unobtained states of affairs exist (even though I don't think I would). Or if we are to take on modality and wonder what universe you are referencing, this universe or one of the other possible universes (if we agree that possible universes do in fact exist). So for a general definition of what is true, perhaps yours works. But in a technical sense, I don't think it does.

Keep in mind that I'm not totally confident in my opinion on universals. I dislike the Platonistic "second world" of abstract objects.

Rather, these universals are more like particulars themselves, like tropes. Aristotle might have been a trope theorist by today's standards. They are the fundamental particles that allow matter to act in the way it does. All other universals, like the ones mentioned above, would merely be describing how matter acts. It's not that matter possesses these properties, it's that matter acts in a certain way, dictated by fundamental tropes, tropes that exist in the world.

I don't have a fantastic understanding of quantum mechanics, but from what I do know, these elementary particles all have an opposite (other than the higgs). It's almost as if they are just logically necessary and unanalyzable (whatever the hell that means).

Eh, you can have an opinion, no doubt, but it's somewhat less authentic. It's pretty vague; you ask anyone why they are alive today and you won't usually get a sufficient answer. People don't know why they continue to live. They just do.

I'm not sure what you could count as philosophy and what doesn't. But the unexamined life is not worth living. You only realize this once you examine your life.

I'm holding out on voting, but I think I'm leaning towards "yes". Yes, a life worth living is dependent on the knowledge within it.

I don't see this to be too difficult to defend. Let's be honest here; not very many people actually do philosophy. Therefore, most people do not realize the value philosophy can have in a person's life. To ask if one's life is worth living is a philosophical question. Therefore, since most people do not "do philosophy" (rather, they live meaninglessly), their life cannot be "worth" anything. I reject the notion that a life worth living can be independent of the subject's opinion of said life; it, by necessity, must come from within, not external.

To do philosophy is to actualize the self.

Interesting post, tgw. I, too, share your interest in meta-philosophy.

I can't remember exactly where I saw it, but to the Pre-Socratics (up to Socrates and including him, that is), philosophy was less of a discipline and more of a way of life. It was treated almost like a religion (albeit far more rational :P). You see a lot of specific Greek words that correlate to an idea, and these Greek words oftentimes represented ideals.

One question I have for you though is why you claim philosophy is necessarily spawn from this "pain". I don't particularly feel like I pursue philosophy necessarily and only because of some kind of pain, discomfort, or what have you. More often than not it is merely curiosity.

In which case, I think Heidegger's idea that anxiety is a necessary quality of existence and contemplation works better than the rather vague terminology of "pain". I feel anxious when I don't know something, which prompts philosophical thinking. I'm curious but alongside this curiosity is the anxiety that comes with uncertainty.

I heartily agree with you that philosophy cannot "know" anything...in fact it would be rather odd if our a priori thinking led to any new knowledge. Wittgenstein, like you said, hit the nail on the head in his quietism in that philosophy is meant to clarify and organize rather than produce new knowledge. Also, I believe it was Heidegger who said that the only things we can know are how to do things. A blacksmith knows how to smelt iron. That's knowledge.

Cool thread.

Then this whole talk of "pleasure" and "goodness" is just equivocation.

Presumably into something that they prefer. I used this example elsewhere, but a rape victim might feel pleasure during the act of rape but still not find it "good".

Not unless they simply re-define what counts as pleasure.

I will be honest here, I don't know very much about quantum mechanics. But I'm interesting in purchasing a book on the philosophy of physics which will hopefully give me more information.

But anyway, quantum mechanics, as far as I can tell, is one of those areas of science that is filled with very smart scientists making very stupid metaphysical assumptions. It seems like it's one of the gray areas between strict philosophy and strict science. In fact, I might go as far as to say that theoretical physics, such as quantum mechanics, is philosophy that is built around empirical science.

One can desire something without feeling any pleasure in doing so. — Thorongil

Reminds me of Taṇhā.

Or, thirdly, one can feel both pleasure and desire simultaneously. — Thorongil

I think this would essentially be pursuing your passions. For example, you could desire to know more about something, and take pleasure in doing so.

What say you about this article and my argument? — Thorongil

I think your reference to "disinterested pleasure" answers this. I don't think a hedonist would count disinterested pleasure as "good". It is interesting, though, how the end-product, pleasure, could be seen as "good" while the process of obtaining pleasure is not good! Perhaps this is answerable by simply weighing the values and realizing that if you want to feel pleasure, there has to be some work involved, and if the pay-off is not redeemable then it's not worth pursuing this pleasure.

The Ego Tunnel by Thomas Metzinger. Great blend of philosophy and empirical science.

Pretty excited for this one. I think I might actually be able to participate, and it's a nice change from basic introductory books.

10/10

I'm perfect :D

I am going to start an arcane, tribal chant "Kuh-Wal-Ish Kid; Kuh-Wal-Ish Kid" in the hopes that it summons him from the ancestral realm. Current statistics puts the effectiveness of this chant at a zero percent rating, but it worked on my dog, so hopefully it will work here.