You asked why I don't like dealing with you, and these kind of remarks are one of several reasons. How is that not inflammatory? I'm sure your response to this will be in the same vein, thus betraying a bit about yourself. — schopenhauer1

When I say you are narcissistic, I don't mean it as an insult. I'm trying to argue that you have placed too much value on your opinion on how things "should be". I'm not calling you a pig, I'm saying you are existentially narcissistic.

Well, a blissful state is probably something along the lines of all preferences being satisfied in the way we want them satisfied. This includes meaning-through-pain, if one so chooses. This also, I guess, includes a certain amount of unexpected pain, that one could stop whenever they wanted and restart if it suited them. Of course, this all sounds like wishful thinking because we are talking utopias here. — schopenhauer1

All preferences being satisfied is impossible. To expect this is to set oneself up for failure and disappointment. Understanding this brings about enlightenment (not the supernatural woo kind). Simply peace.

Also, from a Buddhist perspective, if you mitigate desires (and preferences), you mitigate the suffering you feel when you don't get what you want. Wanting something, achieving that thing and getting a quick dopamine hit is really just prolonging the rat race, if you get my drift, since it all just goes back to the striving anyway.

Since we are the recipient of how it manifests, that is why it matters. The universe isn't for us, but we certainly must deal with what happens to us and thus why it matters to us — schopenhauer1

Sure. I agree, we are aliens to an indifferent cosmos.

We can't think ourselves into a purely blissful state where nothing affects us. By definition, if we need to struggle and need some pain for meaning, it is inbuilt. — schopenhauer1

Thus betraying your narcissism.

Have you considered what a purely blissful state actually is? I would argue that a blissful state is not necessarily one in which nothing affects us (although that wouldn't be horrible either).

It doesn't mean we can't enjoy things. I never said that (though you might try to strawman me). — schopenhauer1

Nor did I, though you might try to strawman me.

it is not about a methodology as much as a recognition that there structures of the world that are not good. — schopenhauer1

Not good from a lowly human perspective. The universe is not benevolent nor malevolent, merely indifferent. How this manifests can be malignant, and it also be benign only to the perspective of a person.

I am not sure how much asceticism will actually work (or work for most people) in really getting rid of desire or any contingent pains — schopenhauer1

It doesn't. It merely gives the person the facade that they are away from their pains, as well as a boost to their ego, oftentimes the same ego they claim they are trying to extinguish.

Asceticism doesn't work because it is not natural. You are constantly reminded why you are pursuing the ascetic lifestyle (suffering).

Of course my pessimism comes in with the notion that we must find meaning through struggle, and that we cannot simply be without some source of stimulus or excitation. Existence without any need, desire, goals would simply be enough. However, this is for all intents and purposes an impossibility from the start and incomprehensible as to how that sort of existence even looks like. — schopenhauer1

Well, if you let go of the narcissistic expectation that life was supposed to be perfect, much of the philosophy of pessimism melts away.

I believe it was in the same thread, but I argued that brute hedonism is not a sufficient explanation for our actions. Preference hedonism/desire-satisfaction hedonism is a far more compelling case than regular hedonism.

Sure, in the daily grind of life hedonism more or less makes sense. You eat a cookie because a cookie tastes good. You don't stab yourself because pain feels bad.

However, more extreme cases bring to light not only new problems but also the superficiality of the prior thinking.

Scenario: A woman is raped by a man. For all intensive purposes, the woman feels hardly any pain at all during the act and it fact feels great sensual pleasure; regardless, she does not want to be raped. A hedonist, however, would have to concede that this act was perfectly okay because the woman (and the man for that matter) both feel only pleasure.

Obviously, the act of rape is still causing the woman severe psychological trauma, which I agree would be pain. But the only reason she is feeling psychological trauma is because her preference (to not be raped) is being disregarded.

Now, back to the prior examples. Do you eat a cookie because the cookie tastes good, or do you eat a cookie because you desire the taste of the sweetness of the cookie? Do you abstain from stabbing yourself because it will hurt, or because you desire to not feel pain?

Metaphysics cannot take criticism and when something does not line up with its preconceived notions it is either brushed off or spun in such a manner as to make it magical. It's basically idealistic bullshit institutionalized. (and that is me being nice) — Mayor of Simpleton

What are you conceiving the nature of metaphysics of being? There's the pop-culture New Age metaphysics bullshit, and then there's academic metaphysics, which today does not really include theology (which I find to be quite unnecessary and mostly bullshit).

I understand and agree with you in your assessment that we are insignificant anomalies in a vast, uncaring universe. However, your position is that all the speculation we put forth into the nature of the cosmos (that is not empirical) is bullshit, and I'm not entirely sure why you believe this to be the case. I don't mean to be rude and I say this simply to garner discussion but to me it seems like you are romanticizing our eternal ignorance.

I reject many of the older, "rationalist" metaphysical structures that were far too anthropocentric. But I'm not willing to throw the baby out with the bath water. I don't see why the universe can't have a discernible, underlying structure...in fact, it would be rather odd if it didn't.

It isn't necessary that you exist but you do, and we can be glad for that. — Bitter Crank

Aww thanks BC. (Y)

A computer program might show up on my monitor and display odd shapes of varying colors. Why?, I might ask. Well, the programming of the program.

Similarly, is there a programming behind the universe that makes it operate the way it does? Because it sure is peculiar that the universe operates in a strict, peculiar fashion.

I might have a problem with P1.

P1 If any gratuitous suffering is preventable and known , it is wrong to allow said gratuitous suffering. — Soylent

What about the trolley problem? Surely allowing the trolley to kill five people would result in gratuitously more suffering than if you flipped the switch and killed one person. And yet many people, including myself, would find this immoral.

Well... I'd say because of the predicating factors that have lead to to things being as they currently are and since these factors have been set into 'motion' they cannot be 'unset' into motion. Much like you cannot really 'unring' a bell once it has been rung. — Mayor of Simpleton

An interesting idea, MoS, but I'm not sure if a metaphor is sufficient to answer the problem here.

How did these factors get set into motion, and what set them into motion?

Do you mean 'why' as in having a purpose for doing what it does... as if there is a universal sort of must be a necessity to it all? — Mayor of Simpleton

Yes. Why is it that eyes let us see and not let us fly? Why does a volcano erupt and not turn into a field of daffodils?

Why should a regress that is infinite be impossible? — Mayor of Simpleton

I was not aware that there were instances that an infinite regress is possible.

The electricity that powers the lightbulb next to me had to come from somewhere. It came from the powerline. But if it's powerlines all the way down, then there is no source of power at all.

Why should determining factors have a limit placed upon them other than the limits of our personal ability to deal with them? — Mayor of Simpleton

Do you mean something along the lines of that, since we are the products of evolution, we are limited in our cognitive abilities?

Why hold determining factor hostage to our personal limitations of perspective and understanding?

The only reason for a metaphysical "why" as far as I can tell is when we are personally dissatisfied with our place in the universe and wish to make the universe dance according to our wishes. The only reason for a metaphysical "why" being at all necessary is when our ego take the high ground and we wish to think the universe is here and is as it is simply because of ourselves. That's why I tend to call it MEphysics. It is nothing more that an egotistical delusion of megalomania. — Mayor of Simpleton

I agree that much of metaphysics seems very anthropocentric.

But to be dissatisfied with an answer is the spark of curiosity that leads to great discoveries. If we had all just given up because we didn't think it was possible to get to the moon, we wouldn't have gotten to the moon.

Curiosity seems to stem directly from our desire to know how we fit into this world.

God is not an answer in any why shape or form. To simply make an appeal to an 'unknowable and invisible product' being sold as the causal agent of anything is not an answer. It changes nothing in terms of understanding, but rather makes a tactical dodging of the issue. — Mayor of Simpleton

Pretty much agree.

Why should pessimism enter the fray at all? — Mayor of Simpleton

IT DOESN'T. HERE ME LOUD AND CLEAR, LET'S KEEP THIS THREAD FREE OF IT.

What I mean to say is that there are plenty of other threads dedicated specifically to pessimism, and I wanted to make sure nobody jumped on board to debate the nature of a pessimistic Will when this isn't really the focus of this topic.

Drop the beat. 8-)

Me gusta.

From the OP: "If there is an interest to discuss the soundness of the premises, I can create a spinoff thread elsewhere." — Postmodern Beatnik

Right. I was being a trigger happy, argumentative ass.

The dictatorship of North Korea seems to be in line with fascism. By breaking ranks with more "traditional" Marxism, Juche ended up with a personality cult and extreme nationalism...which is suspiciously similar to the fascism of the Europeans during the former half of the twentieth century.

This is a case where suffering is just suffering. There isn't even a story after-the-fact that could make it such that the condition made the sufferer's life more fulfilling. Here is an example of suffering just being suffering. — schopenhauer1

From what you wrote, this means suffering just beings suffering requires it to have no additional purpose behind it. Meaning cannot be derived from it.

Now I am not denying that there are certainly cases of suffering (usually extreme) that would add no value or meaning to a person's life, but I struggle to understand how the person is "burdened" with this everyday.

Something about making suffering meaningful makes it easier to cope with.

My mistake. Guess I'm just trigger happy for an argument.

I don't think free range husbandry followed by the swift killing of animals would constitute gratuitous suffering. — Michael

I understand this to mean that you believe that killing an animal does not violate morality. (pointing out the difference between suffering and gratuitous suffering instead of saying killing animals is wrong)

Why is it okay to kill an animal but not a human?

I am curious to know why this is the case.

If you notice, I don't like having dialogues with you, so for my happiness I am not replying. — schopenhauer1

Kinda shot yourself in the foot there, didn't ya?

Wasn't included in the memo but I would like to add that meaning is a part of what makes something good. Meaning, pleasure, and satisfied preferences bundled into one would be what I would consider to be good.

Excellent atmospheric music.

Most usually what is considered good is what is considered moral.

What prevents men from doing this today, and what caused this breakdown that you talk about?

Sure, it is. Pain is intrinsically bad. — The Great Whatever

Stop asserting. Try arguing instead.

As to BDSM, first, there is no contradiction in saying people actively seek out or want to inflict bad things on themselves. Second, there is no contradiction in saying that some bad things might be pursued because they are intermixed with good things (i.e., one can find pleasure in pain, but then one must in some sense find the act pleasant, or they are not 'into' BDSM to begin with). — The Great Whatever

So you admit that pleasure and pain are not simply black and white labels for what is good and bad. There must be first a subject to experience them, and two, an opinion/preference about these experiences.

Of course you are. This might extrinsically cause some other bad thing, like gaining weight, but that too is only bad insofar as it is somehow painful to have more weight. Put anther way, eating the chocolate is not bad insofar as it is pleasant, but insofar as it causes you to gain weight. To see this, note that the dilemma disappears if the chocolate no longer causes you to gain weight, but is still just as pleasant. — The Great Whatever

But that's just what I'm saying, the circumstances are what dictate whether or not a pleasurable experience is desirable! The preference must come first. First, I must want to eat the chocolates. Then I can count it as a pleasurable experience.

Forcing me to eat the chocolates would be immoral because I would not want to eat them. It doesn't matter that I will inevitably taste the smooth, milky texture of the chocolate and get a spike in dopamine. That pleasure lacks any meaning towards me, and might as well not exist.

Hedonism as such is a claim about the good, and so makes no claims about obligations. — The Great Whatever

Okay, here we go, scenario time!

You, a hedonist, are walking down the street one afternoon when you bump into me. I tell you that I have a great offer that you won't be able to deny: an experience machine! You'll feel pleasure beyond your wildest imagination, but if you plug in, you will be in for the rest of your life. You will not be able to leave. But don't worry about your family or friends, I have plenty more of these machines back at my shop that I will hook them up to as well.

Being a hedonist, and professing that pleasure is the only good, you would be obligated to plug in to this machine on pain of contradicting your own philosophy. The only reason you wouldn't plug in would be because you don't desire to, even if there is pleasure available. Desire-satisfaction is a far better theory than hedonism.

So you seem to be making a strange claim here:

1) We cannot control our preferences.
2) The reason we cannot control our preferences is because we cannot control what causes us to suffer.
3) Yet our preferences are in some sense independent from this suffering. — The Great Whatever

Erm, no. I don't claim to know how preferences work, although I might actually end up pursuing a degree that may help solve this.

Pain by itself is not worth anything. There must be an entity that attributes a value to this experience. This is why pain is not necessarily equal to suffering. A person who is into BDSM, for example, wouldn't consider the pain associated with it to be suffering. They would actively pursue it.

Pleasure by itself it not worth anything in the same way as well. For example, let's there's a box of chocolates next to me. Eating them will stimulate my taste buds, release some dopamine to be sure, and give me a "pleasurable" experience. But say I want to lose weight. What then? Am I still enjoying this box of chocolates if I know I need to lose weight?

The problem I see with pure hedonism is that it inevitably leads to unsavory scenarios. Situations such as being jacked up on drugs simply because they make you feel pleasure. Even if I don't want to take these drugs, I would still be obligated to as a hedonist because pleasure is seen as good no matter what. This is otherwise known as the experience machine thought experiment.

But why would this be bad? To say this scenario would be bad would be to appeal to something other than the experience of pleasure. This is, as I have said, the preferences of the individual.

I see. I suppose I just had a wrong understanding of the existentialist perspective. I thought it was just dealing with angst at the loss of objective meaning.

But much of existentialism (not counting Christian existentialism) rests upon the assertion that there is no god, the universe is uncaring, unnecessary suffering exists, etc and therefore there is no meaning and therefore there is an existential crisis. But if the only thing that backs up these assertions are just vague feelings without any analytical thought behind it...that's kind of pathetic. It's as if there's an entire philosophy grounded upon nothing. No arguments.

Another thing you might mean is what people, when asked, say they approve and disapprove of; but this is clearly of not help, since you can't make something good or bad just by holding a certain opinion or saying it is. — The Great Whatever

Why not?

If that were true, there would be no problems, since you could just decide to approve of everything that happened and make it good. — The Great Whatever

Bullshit, we don't have that kind of omnipotent control over our preferences. I can't just say that being stabbed is okay to make it okay. It's not okay. I would prefer not to get stabbed because I prefer to not feel the sensation of suffering. But suffering alone without any preference has no value. Same with pleasure.

The reason rape is bad is that it is traumatic and highly painful, both during and for a long period of time afterward. — The Great Whatever

No, the reason rape is bad is because the act is severely disregarding the preferences of another person. It can presumably still be rape and not "feel bad" in terms of pain.

I never said our preferences are always motivated by pleasure. But it does follow, quite obviously, that not all of our preferences are motivated by what is good. — The Great Whatever

Well, you said your position was that pleasure is the only good.

Quite honestly, the only basis that I can come to for existentialist thought is that of dealing with disillusionment with the world. The breaking of our constructions, such as having a soul or there being a god. But there isn't any logical proof of existentialist metaphysics. Existentialism is just a way of coping and re-assessing everything you thought you knew. But I still do not see how one would go about proving, for example, that there are no values or that the universe is uncaring. They seem to be taken as the granted, null position. Not sure why.

That's kind of what I was thinking, that existentialism is more of a reaction to the religious dogma of the past. But it still begs the question of whether or not the existential dilemma is even a dilemma to begin with, or if it's just meaningless sophistry.

For example, take Sartre's famous words "existence precedes essence". Now this goes against centuries of philosophical metaphysics. Does Sartre actually have any professional metaphysics to back this claim up?

You can disagree with whatever you want. But if you disagreed, you would simply be wrong. — The Great Whatever

You are wrong. ayy

I would ask you to elucidate your position on what is good, and because it would be internally inconsistent, draw out a contradiction from it. — The Great Whatever

Like I said, I'm sympathetic to preference utilitarianism.

A man rapes a woman. This woman does not want to be raped, even though she might actually be feeling pleasure. Does this mean it is good?

It would disgusting if you said it was good because she was feeling pleasure, and pleasure was good.

Oftentimes our preference are motivated by pleasure. But not always. Satisfied Preference is my conception of good.

rather, pleasure is good, and hedonism is the recognition of this, and it is true whether you recognize it in a doctrine or not. — The Great Whatever

No offense but this is a total cop-out argument. I mean, how am I supposed to have a discussion with someone who will just say that I'm blind to the obvious (that pleasure is good)? It won't matter if I disagree with the proposition that pleasure is an intrinsic good.

Furthermore, this line of argument is not only applicable to hedonism. It's applicable to any position.

So it makes no sense to say that what will be of aid to you depends on which philosophy you adopt, if by 'be of aid' you mean 'be good,' and what is good isn't dependent on your philosophical worldview. — The Great Whatever

I might disagree that pleasure is intrinsically good. And when I say "aid someone" I mean to help someone with problems they might be facing.

And yes, Stoicism says pleasure and pain aren't inherently good or bad, but this is wrong. Pleasure and pain are the only things that are good or bad on their own terms. — The Great Whatever

Hypothetically speaking I could disagree. You could call me out and say I'm wrong, but how would you actually formulate an argument except by simply copping out and proclaiming that you are right even if I don't recognize it?

Things like virtue, and so on, are only good in virtue of certain arbitrary opinions, customs, consequences, social norms, etc., and then only insofar as they are efficient causes of pleasure. — The Great Whatever

Pleasure may be defined differently. Obviously a Stoic is going to disagree with your assessment that all pleasure is good no matter what. Also, pleasure being a "good" is really only based on the arbitrary basis of our conscious experiences and our opinions of them. A nihilist could just as easily say this is all bullocks and that there is no good or bad experiences.

In other words, virtue is always 'good insofar as...' — The Great Whatever

Insofar that it leads to eudaimonia, which is not equal to pleasure.

For the record, I am sympathetic to preference utilitarianism.

I was going to reply using my own words but I found a source that words it better than I could:

In the briefest of outlines, the Stoic theory held that the only good thing is virtue (aretê, ‘excellence of character’) and the only bad thing is vice, its opposite. Everything else is ‘indifferent’ between virtue and vice, being in no sense at all good or bad. Thus the Stoics maintained that the bulk of humanity, in pursuing wealth and material goods, status, health and anything at all that is popularly conceiving of as good is making a mistake so long as that pursuit is based on the belief that these things really are good, or are desirable because they are good. Living virtuously is necessary and sufficient for living well and being happy, and the ‘indifferent’ things, although worth pursuing to the extent that it is appropriate for human beings to seek adequate shelter, sustenance and companionship, are in no way required for eudaimonia.

So pleasure and suffering only become "good" or "bad", ethically, when they are associated with virtue or vice. Otherwise they are indifferent, neutral, and are not required to obtain eudaimonia.

Of course if you consider yourself a hedonist then I suppose this doesn't have much bearing on your conception of the world. But for those who do not subscribe to a strictly hedonistic philosophy of living, Stoicism might be of aid.

I can see how Stoicism could be used to ensure people are content even if their empire is abusing them. — schopenhauer1

This would be violating the principle of charity.

Yeah, I miss the like system but I don't miss the reputation system. Too bad they are linked.

I think you are expecting too much.

Of course if my dog died I would be filled with grief. It is a natural reaction to such circumstances, and it's probably unhealthy to keep it all bottled up.

A key concept in Stoicism is that a person has a duty. Ever been given a special job, even if it is menial? For some reason everyone seems to get perky when they have an important thing to do. It gives them a sense of purpose and pride. Move out of the way!, I'm here to deliver a very-important-package to a very-important-person!

So I think a Stoic would say the duty that someone has, no matter what, is to live virtuously. And if you cannot live virtuously anymore, it is time to die (which many voluntarily did so). And so no matter what happens to you, you can cope with it because it is your duty to do so, so you can continue to live virtuously.

Instead of interpreting Stoicism as an insta-cure to all pain and suffering, it might help to interpret it as a movement that advocates a certain perspective towards pain and suffering. I think this applies to other philosophies outside of Stoicism as well.

Also, it should be noted that Aristotle thought that the constant striving towards perfection was never-ending.

I looked it up, Wayfarer, Aristotle advocated what is known as immanent or moderate realism.

I found a short summary of Aristotle's criticisms of Platonism, which I think accurately sums up the problems I have with the theory and general Realism for that matter.

I don't know whether to classify Aristotle as a Realist or a Nominalist, though.

I also don't agree with everything Aristotle said, especially the part regarding the anthropomorphizing of particulars striving for perfection. We humans can do so, and in fact Aristotle's thoughts on this are strikingly similar to that of Nietzsche's, but ultimately the universe is under the influence of entropy. So there really is no "perfection" here, unless "perfection" means to return to the state of absolute potential substance.

I believe I just described Aristotle's hylomorphism, that is, that matter (hyle) assumes forms (morph). His Prime Mover was pure Form, and he also conceived of Pure Matter, which could be interpreted as a predecessor to quantum indeterminacy.