Philosophy Thread

[ZeaLitY]

I hate needless ornamentation. I've been going through books on philosophy, and I almost feel sorry for its fanciers. There is so, so, so much written about the world that's been the cumulative work of centuries of thought. This means that parts of it have also been deprived of centuries of science. At some point, it's as if every old philosophy turns into wild masturbation about the nature of the universe, complete with a truckload of made-up concepts and their interactions. It's as if once you get past the applications, there's a labyrinthine dump of bad science fiction and stodgy assumptions about human existence. Nevermind that most of them seem to assume the psyche or soul can be separated from the body.

I'm thankful for pure, clean-cut science.

[tushantin]

...At some point, it's as if every old philosophy turns into wild masturbation about the nature of the universe, complete with a truckload of made-up concepts and their interactions. It's as if once you get past the applications, there's a labyrinthine dump of bad science fiction and stodgy assumptions about human existence. Nevermind that most of them seem to assume the psyche or soul can be separated from the body.

I'm thankful for pure, clean-cut science.

XDDD This post cracked me up. It strikes to me your perception is so blinded by rational skepticism (something good to have, but bad to sleep with) that you are unable to understand the concept of conceptualism, even though you did say "centuries of accumulated thought", where you couldn't arrive to a conclusion if you didn't try, no matter how many mistakes you've made.

Just remember that, though it's good to have a small mixture, when you enforce philosophy with hardcore science rules you also thereby restrict its field. The problem isn't noticeable until you realize that restrictions from stupid things also restricts you from doing clever things. Hell, even science occasionally dabbles into made-up horseshit theories, just to move things a step further.

(Just a note: I'm not trying to offend you, just stating my point of view; following your nature and preference, in this case Science and you, isn't really wrong)

P.S.: If you're interested in reading philosophy with actual scientific references and sources, I... don't really know where to find them, and thus would gladly write one for you.

[Syna]

At some point, it's as if every old philosophy turns into wild masturbation about the nature of the universe, complete with a truckload of made-up concepts and their interactions. It's as if once you get past the applications, there's a labyrinthine dump of bad science fiction and stodgy assumptions about human existence. Nevermind that most of them seem to assume the psyche or soul can be separated from the body.

What philosophy are you reading, exactly? Philosophy is a bit like science in that unless you have a context for the terminology and conventions, it can be pretty obtuse and inaccessible, and easy to misinterpret.

Things that sound outlandish are often more valuable for the underlying ideas, rather than the way they're expressed. For instance, under a lot of talk about God, the Scholastics were saying very profound things about causality -- concepts which eventually culminated in the Scientific Revolution of Descartes. That's not exactly something intuitive to take out of a bunch of arguments about Aristotelian metaphysics, but it's where the value lies, and it's hard to see that without a teacher to help you along.

There's a difficult learning curve when it comes to reading the ancients. There are a lot of concepts that translate poorly through no fault of the translator since the context of past paradigms was so radically different from ours. So I do understand the frustration. Analytic philosophy is more recent and has made attempts to be very clear, so you might find that better going.

I'm thankful for pure, clean-cut science.

And I'm thankful that people talk about things that science can only present blank data upon -- like ethics, aesthetics, epistemologies, etc. Maybe you'd prefer the work of experimental philosophers, who work with empirical data (and do legit interdisciplinary work to get it), or philosophers of science? I've read some really good moral philosophy recently that incorporates some fairly cutting-edge psychology.

[tushantin]

And I'm thankful that people talk about things that science can only present blank data upon -- like ethics, aesthetics, epistemologies, etc. Maybe you'd prefer the work of experimental philosophers, who work with empirical data (and do legit interdisciplinary work to get it), or philosophers of science? I've read some really good moral philosophy recently that incorporates some fairly cutting-edge psychology.

Like... the Kabbalah? I know, the unofficial Judaic treatise termed as simple as "the nature of God", but it also offers profound, practical theories on though, individual minds, truth, language, nature of truth, and psychology.

Damn, this discussion gets interesting by every post. We oughta have a "Philosophy offshoot of Stuff You Hate thread". Erm... or perhaps just "Philosophy thread" would be nice, because I'm gonna LOVE it, not hate it.

@ZeaLitY: Do post references of the books ya read. Reason being I wanna make a personal list/notes of em.

[Syna]

Nonono, tush, we can talk about the Kabbalah anyday, but that's definitely not anything like experimental philosophy

Experimental philosophy is basically a hybrid of science and philosophy - an ironic return to the Greek philosophers, in a way. In recent times they do things like... well, the most recent example I read about was someone who was investigating utilitarianism (a moral philosophy) with the help of a psychology researcher. They did tests on the reactions of people who lack certain capacities for emotion to certain ethical scenarios to see if they were more utilitarian (they were!).

[tushantin]

Ah, I see what you mean. Though I don't really know what definition Sci-Phil Hybrid kind of school-of-thought has; I merely suggest people that they're "thinking like an artist" (as I do).

I'm not sure if this specific book is one of that category, but you might find this interesting. But knowing you, the book's already read and done in your library.  If not, Plato discusses Justice and explores political philosophy.

[Syna]

What do you mean by "thinking like an artist"?

I think the term makes more sense within philosophy. A lot of philosophical schools reference empirical data and even things like sociological theories, but by necessity certain ones are not *based* on empirical data of the sort science accumulates. In the Venn diagram of philosophy and science, experimental philosophers are in the middle, if that makes any sense. (They're in good company. Fields like cosmology are there too!)

It's also a modern term, since things were way more ambiguous before philosophy and science became these institutions with separate departments, and a lot of people were doing both .

And yep, I've read the Republic. Plato is one of my Nemeses, lol. I wouldn't call his work experimental philosophy; a closer ancient analog would be in the Pre-Socratics.

[tushantin]

The term "Think Like An Artist", or Art-Mind, is one that I define the mindset of an artist, such as Stanley Kubrick, Salvador Dali, William Blake, Cyril Takayama, René Magritte, etc. with respect to their fields. The definition is broad (all because I do not, or simply can't, rely on lingual definitions) which factors in various philosophies and sciences, with conceptualism as basis, and extending the boundaries of imagination all because logic and practical science is heavily limited. In this case, aesthetics are always a primary concern, building a vision that is in no way explainable in our universe, and science is simply a tool to exploit that vision. Our job is to combine the best of all worlds and explore places no one has gone before, much like experimental scientists, and there's no room for something being "impossible". If a chair can explode into creation out of no where, then it god-damn will!

For instance, if I tell people here that the world is beautiful, many might agree and many might disagree. If I said the world is magical, and that supernatural exists, they'll call me insane and deluded. No problem, since that's their honest response; problem is that they're unable to see it from our eyes, or we're unable to explain it, and thus they are quick to judge. Us Art-Minded blokes are aware we muse too much, but we also know where we belong and thus place our anchors in reality, and simply show our dreams to the world via art, that speaks a thousand words. But even today most Art-Minded people are discriminated against by Realists*, while at the same time we pity them for not being able to see a greater picture.

(Note: we have some of these guys here at the Compendium, but I don't wanna point any fingers here; one in real life constantly laughs at me for drawing teddy bears)

At the same time I'm careful not to categorize people, as Art-Minded individuals have their personal philosophies which make them unique. I, for one, believe that if a concept exists, no matter how idiotic or unlikely it sounds, it is possible (although, with slightly altered properties or circumstances). Think spirits aren't real? Think again. Tooth Fairy doesn't exist? She's probably laughing at you. Our Sun likes to devour stars? Yup! Aliens are real? I don't even need to answer that. XD As an Art-Mind, all I need to do is take a walk at a calm evening or morning and marvel with curiosity at the nature of existence, and suddenly everything you see would seem like an impossible spell of paradise to you. Everything would seem magical. And since we're also scientific in our approach, it is our job to understand this magic and exploit its secrets subjectively and practically.

P.S.: Thanks for the Venn diagram! I'll be checking it out. And sorry if my passage confused you.


EDIT: Just an added note to an artist's philosophy. While the scientists seek to gather information via logic and calculation, us artists consider the world to be our canvas. We pick out beauty from the blandest planes, and we paint in rainbows where the sky is clear grey.

[ZeaLitY]

I'm a skeptic, and I don't have a single problem recognizing the beauty of grandiose things or the human condition, and striving to create art to reflect that. Just as scientific truth may be limited to a model of how the world works, it similarly doesn't impinge on anyone's ability to imagine. The scientific process absolutely requires a healthy imagination, in fact. I would say that anti-art people are just dull consumers, or something.

Experimental philosophy is basically a hybrid of science and philosophy

I've used this lull of fortune in the job-hunting process to read a lot of philosophy. Would I be correct to identify experimental philosophy with naturalized epistemology? When I discovered that, and critiques of the analytical process, I felt like I finally had a philosophical home. I feel as if recent (speaking on a large scale) scientific advancements have shown many of the cosmological assertions by old philosophies to be errant, which limits their viability and my desire to comb them over for good parts.

And yep, I've read the Republic. Plato is one of my Nemeses, lol. I wouldn't call his work experimental philosophy; a closer ancient analog would be in the Pre-Socratics.

What are your favorite philosophies, or those you try to live by? While I was aware of this threat for years, I recently identified that my springtime of youth approach was having the poisonous byproducts of unchecked perfectionism (and the havoc it wreaks upon someone with many ambitions but limited time) and the phenomenon of caring too much, to the point that your own unshakeable gaze makes the trials of desire harder to bear. (I still romanticize Captain Ahab for not giving a single fuck about this.) While the springtime of youth is still strong as ever, better perspectives were needed to manage it. I've read a lot about different philosophies over the last few weeks (realizing of course that not all of them were meant to prescribe how life should be lived). I fell in love with four in particular, but feel like I've only taken certain parts from each:

Stoicism

This has been such a remedy. The central premise I'm striving to adopt is, care not for what you cannot control. This has been hard for me because I...just tend to think that way; I fuel some of my social justice cares with agony/fury over all the things I don't have the power to change, for example, and realize that a lot of great art comes from tragedy and caring over what is out of human control. Validation is the same way; it's hard not to find validation solely in what one cannot control, giving this a degree of meaning thanks to its otherness. Learning not to care, or to only care if I choose to care or attain control, is so much better. It removes the multiplication of pains and assists in strategy. There are a lot of other Stoic points from the Romans that I love, such as Aurelius's instruction to retreat into/value yourself, to Seneca's powerful words about humanity's skill in living displeased.

Epicureanism

I don't believe in souls or the supernatural, and accept the rational position that consciousness is an emergent phenomena of matter. Thus, our mind is not separate from the body and cannot be treated as an isolated pursuit. In my opinion, it's impossible to achieve total mastery over the mind and disconnect it from physical needs and sensations without psychological damage, even self-induced. This seems like an obvious fact in the case of the religious, who toil and suffer and beat themselves up over not being able to adhere to a regular church schedule, or regularly read the scriptures, or whatever, just like Mother Teresa spent her entire life in self-conflict over not really being able to believe in God. There is no soul or separate mind that can achieve total dominion over a physical existence; we are that existence. To try and achieve pure sagacity or asceticism is to stray from the human condition and invite damage. I cannot comprehend a self-immolating monk's mastery of pain, nor would I ever want to damagingly shape myself into a life of restraint and meditation, absent achievement or worldbuilding, to achieve that mastery.

This brings me to what I like about Epicureanism. I want to stay squarely in the human condition, and that means acknowledging the unbreakable link with my body. While I dream of higher pursuits, I should not neglect my body's condition or pleasure; there should be an alignment between my ambitions, fulfillment, and pleasure. I'm often way, way too hard on myself, and I feel like time spent on my own happiness is time stolen from greater achievements I could be undertaking, or from social justice. Along with friendly support, realizing this view has reduced the issue to just finding the right balance between pleasure and what I've dubbed "the love of truth", or pursuing higher things like art or improved civilization. Epicurus's words of caution about moderating pleasure are also pretty cool and apt. One of the things I don't like about it is that he seemed to advocate withdrawal from politics and statecraft, things that might cause displeasure. I'm more with Epictetus on that one:

Let no wise man estrange himself from the government of the state; for it is both impious to withdraw from being useful to those that need it, and cowardly to give way to the worthless. For it is foolish to choose rather to be governed ill, than to govern well.

Also, Democratus was out there Doing Science and laughing it up while Plato was sitting in his morbid cave dreaming up The World According to Plato. I wonder where my sympathies lie!

Absurdism

What a great boon absurdism is! And how connected to some veins of Stoic attitudes, like Aurelius's reminders that we'll soon be ash and bone, as Augustus and his court. I wish I'd learned of it sooner. I was getting dangerously close to idealizing the springtime of youth as a fundamental meaning in life, and losing my chance to embrace the absurdity of the universe and create my own meaning freely. It was so liberating to find it. Together with the Stoicism and Epicureanism, it feels like part of a unity of "dismissing the bad, and maximizing the good" of the human experience and pleasure in life. What a fantastic perspective.

Zen

I'm still working on this one. I had bad experiences at first, because every text I picked up about Zen Buddhism kicked off with sweeping metaphysical statements and bullshit-laden speculative fiction. I recently went to the koans themselves to try and understand Zen more, because traditional Buddhism and Taoism still don't do it for me at all. Buddhism has some good points, but alienates the unspeakably essential human quality of desire/ambition; taoism also has good points, like bending with adversity, but fuck its undertones of "noble savagery" and civilization being evil and requiring a return to unfettered village life. I'm sure James Cameron would eat it for breakfast, Luddite bastard. Confucianism has its good points, but I agree with Bruce Lee that ritualization/tradition = bad, and it's a bit sad that Confucius so ardently promoted it while actually supporting the really good idea of meritocracy. I had issues with Hinduism as well; it's so deeply rooted in spiritual/metaphysical assertions that it felt near impossible to separate any good concepts out of it.

So I went to the Zen koans and some limited commentary. I was able to grasp most of the 101 Zen Stories right off, and the Blue Cliff koans don't seem so bad, either. The Gateless Gate ones have been pretty tough. Overall, Zen seems really absurdist to me; there's so much about emptiness, but not quite emptiness; the koans seem to construct the idea of a concept that cannot be expressed in word. It isn't emptiness, but it's not an absence of emptiness, either. There seem to be strong undercurrents of 1) the necessity of personal development and enlightenment, as opposed to a dependence on study and the learnings of others; and 2) detachment, such that one can recognize the meaninglessness of everything while also gaining the ability to appreciate it all as good, like the koan about the butcher's shop (in which he tells a monk that each cut of meat is "the best", and the monk enlightens). These are all very useful. It was also cool to finally "get" Budai, the laughing Buddha. The koan about him dropping his sack and picking it back up to signify Zen and its application, respectively, was awesome.

I just wonder if the gifts of these realizations were wasted, as it seems all the monks did was perpetuate themselves in monastic schools. If I unlocked powers of superior cognition and judgment, you can bet I'd try to reform the world or pursue the highest heights of art. I'm eager to find out how much else in the business of "Western Buddhism/Zen" is bullshit now, too. I remember books like "The Zen of Bowling", and have to wonder just how much good there is in these, and how much of it is spiritual hooey as so many Westerners have embraced in trendy Buddhism-lite™. "It's a philosophy, not a religion!" Fuck you. It's a religion.

Mohism

Mohism was like eating dessert after studying the rest. Oh Mohism, how may I count thine beauties? (From Wikipedia:)

• Governments should be meritocracies
• Rulers should have expert, bright councilors and advisors
• Humans should care for all humanity impartially, appearing to eschew nationalism
• Tradition is not sufficient to dictate morality
• Centralized society promotes efficiency and reduces waste
• All you need is love
• THERE IS NO FATE; THE FUTURE IS WHAT YOU MAKE IT

Yummy.

Fuck, that turned into a long post...I guess we might need to split this into a thread about one's favorite philosophies.

[tushantin]

Dude, that was the most awesome post I read all week (although it's still Tuesday Wednesday)! Just a few notes:

Buddhism has some good points, but alienates the unspeakably essential human quality of desire/ambition; ....

....I had issues with Hinduism as well; it's so deeply rooted in spiritual/metaphysical assertions that it felt near impossible to separate any good concepts out of it.

First of all, you got it wrong. Core Buddhism doesn't intend to alienate zeal or desire. The "desire" which is translated to from the other word has a slightly different definition shift. The principle you're talking about is to curb and control destructive or impractical elements of your desires (such as spontaneous lust, which in turn breeds sexist and malicious thoughts), and not really restricting about restricting your ambitions. In fact, Buddhism promotes humility and stoicism. The "enlightened" is basically the wise one knowing the consequences of each action, and performing them for the better of the world. It simply strives at making you a better person, to rid of flaws and balance intelligence.

...And you got Hinduism thing wrong too.   Think again, my good friend. I dabble in the world and its philosophies (hell, I live in it), and I'm also an anti-spiritualist. Here's a hint: why do you think I constantly stated in an earlier thread that Gandhi is immortal?

taoism also has good points, like bending with adversity, but fuck its undertones of "noble savagery" and civilization being evil and requiring a return to unfettered village life. I'm sure James Cameron would eat it for breakfast, Luddite bastard.

Okay, this made me LOL!  

2) detachment, such that one can recognize the meaninglessness of everything while also gaining the ability to appreciate it all as good,

Do you mean the principles of Serenity?

[Syna]

Ahh, I love hearing about how philosophy actually impacts the lives of the people who study it! It gets accused of irrelevance so often that I feel like an anomaly. A lot of philosophy certainly feels like an intricate game you play, but I personally do feel that it's helped me in many respects -- in being able to experiment with radically different perspectives, as well as lodestars for my actions.

I'm going to have to think about how to present what philosophies have impacted me in an attempt not to answer in incoherent paroxysms of enthusiasm at the opportunity to talk about this sort of thing.

I've used this lull of fortune in the job-hunting process to read a lot of philosophy. Would I be correct to identify experimental philosophy with naturalized epistemology?

Some experimental philosophers may be naturalized empiricists, but not necessarily. "Experimental philosophy" is more like a job title, like "philosopher of science" or "epistemologist" - it indicates subject matter and a methodology. Naturalized empiricism is more like an ideology. I would venture to say that most people who believe in it would perform experimental philosophy, though. I don't know the modern schools of thought that push it, unfortunately, beyond the late logical positivists, but I'm a few years behind what's going on now.

I feel as if recent (speaking on a large scale) scientific advancements have shown many of the cosmological assertions by old philosophies to be errant, which limits their viability and my desire to comb them over for good parts.

That's definitely true. I mean, to be very basic about it, everyone knows Thales is incorrect: all is _not_ water, it turns out! But if you study history of philosophy, what you need to train yourself to look for is not the weird assertion, but what's behind it: the structure of the argument. What was revolutionary is Thales' attempt to find an underlying principle behind all of matter, the arche, and his expectations for how that principle would behave and what it would be.  Likewise, all of Plato's crazy talk about the Forms and the Good become a lot more valid-seeming when you think about his interest in Pythagoras and mathematics -- his ideas are *still* being talked about seriously among mathematicians!

A book that may interest you - but one which, be warned, is often used against the proponents of naturalized empiricism (and as such may irritate you at points) - is Kuhn's "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions." He talks about paradigm-shifts within science and a lot of people who read the book come out with a better understanding of how to approach antiquated philosophy. It's a bit old school at this point, but it was a landmark book and is really readable.

Anyway, I really enjoyed hearing the specifics of the philosophies that appealed to you, and I'll have more commentary after some thought and time.  I had never heard of Mohism before; my Eastern philosophy has always needed work, and that's some motivation to get going. It sounds really awesome (aside from the whole devaluating art bit, but I suppose that's forgivable ;D).

Core Buddhism doesn't intend to alienate zeal or desire. The "desire" which is translated to from the other word has a slightly different definition shift.

Y'know, this is fascinating because I've always had a hunch that "desire" was not an especially good translation of whatever the actual original term is. Can you explain a bit more about what the words that are translated as "desire" or "attachment" actually mean if you have the time? I ask because I tend to have a knee-jerk negative reaction to Buddhist rhetoric due to the fact I see desire as, well, desirable. I imagine that's more than a bit superficial. I'd like to take advantage of a multilingual comrade to correct my assumptions if I have the chance

I always suspected "emptiness" did not quite evoke the correct connotations too, but I'm not sure.

[ZeaLitY]

Thanks for the suggestions! I feel that this study and the writing of my own 5 paragraph philosophy (more of a collection/guide for my life, than some kind of achievement or something I'd share) have liberated me from the existential dread of decision-making. This alleged quote of Byron highlights the issue:

In commitment, we dash the hopes of a thousand potential selves.

I have a huge fear of regret, and many ambitions; more than simple prioritization of them, I needed something that would let me structure my day without second-guessing myself. I also needed a way to divide time spent in "the love of truth" and time spent maintaining my physical existence and enjoying pleasure. Otherwise, I tended to be too hard on myself (thinking of my dreams slipping past me due to wavering determination, or concerns about insufficient involvement in social justice), and too easily dissuaded by self-doubt and feelings that my actions weren't optimal and would not achieve my goals. I feel incredibly freer, now. Epicureanism minds my body; Absurdism minds my mind; Stoicism minds my temper; Zen minds my peace; and Mohism minds my romanticism. (Okay, so Mohism really isn't that important, but it's too cool not to spread the word about.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Battle_of_Wits_%282006_film%29 is a pretty good romantic depiction of Mohists during the warring states era.

[Lord J Esq]

Ahh, I love hearing about how philosophy actually impacts the lives of the people who study it! It gets accused of irrelevance so often that I feel like an anomaly. A lot of philosophy certainly feels like an intricate game you play, but I personally do feel that it's helped me in many respects -- in being able to experiment with radically different perspectives, as well as lodestars for my actions.

This is one of my principal concerns. Stay tuned!

Y'know, this is fascinating because I've always had a hunch that "desire" was not an especially good translation of whatever the actual original term is  Can you explain a bit more about what the words that are translated as "desire" or "attachment" actually mean if you have the time? I ask because I tend to have a knee-jerk negative reaction to Buddhist rhetoric due to the fact I see desire as, well, desirable.

I had this same reaction, and for a number of years one of my background goals was to get to the bottom of it. I finally came up with an explanation that satisfied me, which is not to say that it is the correct one so much as that it serves to explain the Buddhist viewpoint accurately. The key is to focus on the context of the people who originate Buddhist dogma and the contexts of the people who are going to adhere to it. You are essentially correct that "desire" isn't really the best word for it--but it is by no means an incorrect description. There's a lot in life--material and ideal--that most people can't have, either because of external onuses beyond their control or because of internal character flaws which they do not recognize. People spend a lot of energy not having what they want, especially when they don't understand the thing desired so well as they think they do. This agitation--this expenditure of time and energy in vain--is what "desire" means.

The problem with Buddhism is that it's deathly pragmatic on this point. It advocates that people cultivate within themselves an acceptance of the way things are--which is actually quite appropriate, but if isolated from the human drive for progress can become destructively inuring to those who believe in it.

Here is my real-world example: I love to go outside and watch the mountains. I get rather annoyed at the bugs who sometimes buzz around me and distract my attention. I desire that they leave me be...a desire which, with bug repellent or bat houses I might be able to achieve to some extent, but which, in the moment, I have no power to change. So why be agitated? My instincts react to these incursions in my personal space, because that is what instincts evolved to do, but they do not serve me here. Essentially, by indulging these distractions --rather than disciplining myself to ignore them selectively--I am my own impediment to enjoying the moment. I've tried to be more accepting about bugs landing on me and strafing near my ears. I've also had minimal success, and a noticeable improvement of my ability to enjoy those moments despite the bugs.

(Thankfully, I am more often than not left quite well enough alone on these patio expeditions.)

Buddhism, with its religious intentions and target audience of powerless peasants, focuses too exclusively on killing the human drive for achievement. As people's material quality of life improves, we gain the power to change our surroundings, and Buddhism's overextended focus on self-restraint becomes outmoded unless it is attached to a "sense of perspective" which many Western Buddhists now espouse: "tempered" desire. That's an example of religious dogma evolving in the span of a generation.

I leave it to you how much value there is to be had from the Buddhist package. People with wits enough can develop these ideas on their own without having to encumber themselves with the detrimental religious improprieties of Buddhism--which ZeaLitY is so fond of pointing out and which Western Buddhists are so fond of ignoring--while still adhering to many of the underlying principles which condone those improprieties.

Edit: Clarity and correctness in the bug paragraph. =)

[ZeaLitY]

There, finally got this split. Given the difficulty of obtaining the things that I may fancy myself as dramatically enjoying (like commanding a non-profit with an edge, writing, etc.), I sat down tonight to try and decode things and reinforce my course towards something, given several threats to my free time that are nearing. Based on my "philosophy", I tried to assist my own decision-making in my private journal.

I'm posting it here for consideration. There are a lot of generalizations, as this was written by me for me to help decode difficulties in my pursuit of dreams. Some of my assumptions:

• The universe is meaningless
• Humans possess sentience, can create meaning, etc.
• There is no such thing as a soul or the supernatural, meaning this physical existence is all we have
• Epicurus was right; pursuit of pleasure and minimization of pain based on preserving others' same pursuit is the right path (well, that's the short version)
• Humanism is right; humanistic ethics are supreme, and the Stoics were right that a person should not neglect politics, as it is stupidity to choose to be governed poorly (unlike Epicurus, who suggested abstinence from politics)
• Lucidity and efficacy are divine

~

December 2, 2011

Humanism supports the Epicurean goal of enjoying the most pleasurable life by focusing on the human experience. The more sophisticated and ethical one’s mind, the more pleasurable things like statecraft or administration for a good end become, and the more patient one can become towards intellectual activities. Sophistication further represents a shift from pleasure constituting direct, obvious acts (like food and sex) to actions and events that reinforce and construct meaningfulness. A sophisticated mind can also better gauge the potential for future pleasures at the cost of present sacrifice. However, the greater the sacrifice, the bigger the risk is inherent in the future pleasure not materializing, and the sacrifice having been for naught. Time is the constraining factor on the enjoyment of pleasure in this life, and wasting time (different from enjoying unconstructed time) is often the engine of regret and the greatest threat to happiness.

As it was in the classic era, most people on earth have their lives determined by “fate”, or a several general factors that shape a person’s life while allowing for smaller variations and chance here and there. Psychology, genetics, region, language, culture, religion, economies, and other factors intersect to determine a person’s likeliest path in life. The system of our civilization provides for much of this, guiding people to what they naturally are fated to do. The chemist passionate about science and who possesses the right mix of externalities will pursue chemistry, and otherwise has a normal life according to their culture, deriving pleasure and meaning from its constructs. The chemist who isn’t passionate enough or doesn’t possess the right externalities will settle into a mediocre office job and be satiated by the pleasures a normal life entails as well. This mediocre one may always think of the road untaken and long for it, especially in moments of pursuit of chemistry as a hobby, but their lack of choice is assent to mediocrity. No one does anything they do not want to do. (At least until mind control and some kind of neuromuscularly-enforced slavery are invented.) The conventional slave would rather live as a slave than die, and so on.

There are two dimensions to pleasure in life; colloquially, the journey and the destination. To reuse the chemist example, a chemist may enjoy the “journey” in the work of research, or enjoy the “destination” of the salary given for synthesizing compounds for a large company. The greatest possible life combines the most pleasurable journey and most pleasurable destination. Many decisions are made as a balance between the risks of wasting time without pleasure for a pleasurable reward, and this acts as a form of fate.

Western society and many religions promote strong ideas of “attaining happiness”, viewed as a state of being happy that persists after completion of hard work and sacrifice. As an example, Christianity facilitates a great deal of suffering by promising endless heaven in the afterlife, justifying damaging and warping pain in the present in its adherents. The pain is further compounded by the concept of sin, which often punishes adherents with guilt for undertaking certain pleasure-seeking activities, such as sex. How warped people become when life is a burden, and relief through the most basic human urges is a cause for guilt and suffering! The Western focus on “attaining happiness” also facilitates the capitalist exploitation of labor. Workers culturally believe that happiness will come after much work and sacrifice, and are thus less likely to demand a bit of happiness in the here and now through better conditions and a system of greater equality. Nowhere is this more enshrined than in the “American Dream”; the media reinforces it as well, through narcissistic depictions of the rich and famous.

The system continues in large part because the first world does have an abundance of pleasures outside work. First world citizens are flooded with constant entertainment and diversions, helping to soothe the condition of working a hated job each day. This situation may reinforce humanity’s short-sightedness. A group, hamstrung by exploitative labor conditions and far from “attaining happiness”, may be more easily disposed to abusing more basic pleasures, such as drugs and alcohol. A person who, except for the promise of “attaining happiness”, may not otherwise stomach years of mindless labor, is especially susceptible to relieving the conditions of their life of grinding by turning to substance or baser things, such as pleasure from meanness or privilege. And when the ultimate goal of “attaining happiness” does not materialize or is threatened? Something like that is happening in several developing countries, which have seen a deluge of competent graduates without jobs for them to fill. China’s seen a spike in young adult suicides for this reason.

Getting back to fate, a person’s capacities to enjoy the journey and destination functionally shape their behavior. Let’s use an example of two people who desire to be elected officials. An evil person, born with a preternatural patience or ability to stomach mundaneness and image-building, as well as an enjoyment of power and its externalities, may easily decide the cost of becoming a politician is worth it. A good person, desiring to be an elected official to help the world, but possessing a strong ethical backbone and a need for consistent self-identification with certain unpalatably noble ethics, may not be able to stomach the process of image-building and patience necessary to gain office, nor the trappings of corruption and abuse that lie in most power structures. The evil one is more likely to attain it. Power attracts those who delight in the pleasure of power and its acquisition. Rarer is the politician who merely enjoys bureaucracy itself, and rarest of all is a “Cincinnatus”, a most reluctant, though capable leader who neither seeks power for pleasure nor enjoys the process of its acquisition. (His opposition of the lower classes excused, of course.)

This is fate, and deviation from it inordinately difficult—not only in achieving a course change, but in enjoying it. Most of the world would enjoy the benefits of being a billionaire, but beyond those unequipped to achieve that in the current system, many people would not be able to stomach becoming a billionaire—whether from ethical problems or natural bent towards other activities—and many more would judge the risk of wasting one’s entire life on trying to make money to be above the minuscule chance of succeeding. Several people may enjoy painting, but weigh the risk of ultimately having a destitute life above the slim chance of their painting becoming a livelihood. Cultural attitudes towards security and wealth, as well as fear of poverty, shape innumerable decisions.

One may thus decide to adopt a decision-making process that seeks to maximize pleasure from the journey and destination, which, in our current society of office jobs and menial labor, is often a balance of grinding and payoff. However, a process that always runs to the best average balance may still be imperfect. Lack of information complicates everything. A person may choose one job or another, lacking the information that if they quickly learned a different subject or acquired a different certification, they might be able to achieve a much more pleasurable life in a different area. More obviously, a talented artist who suffers from negative perfectionism or self-esteem issues may neglect their craft, having decided the risk of being destitute is not worth what they perceive as the slim chance they would be successful—when in actuality, their esteem issues or fears are preventing them from recognizing that they are indeed talented. Worse, a person without sufficient self-knowledge may not know what makes them happy. Worst of all, a person may never be able to know what makes them happy without risking things and having certain experiences.

Fears (especially of poverty) and frames of reference pollute the entire system. In some respect, the Ahabs of the world are the lucky ones, for they have guiding, incinerating passions, uncomplicated by fears or value decisions. They are perhaps also the most imprisoned by fate, but this isn’t necessarily bad, as guiding, incinerating passions can be some of the most rewarding and pleasurable. Nor is fate itself necessarily a “bad” concept, as ultimately, the universe is meaningless, and we are all fated to die.

But the problem remains for reasonable people: what is the best way, in a world full of opportunities (though fragile and dwindling), to chart a successful course for a life of the most pleasure in journey and destination, limited of course by rigidly adhering to humanist ethics and vision, and abstaining from destroying the same Epicurean pursuit of others?

Some ideas:

1. Pursue interesting experience, and see the world. The Grand Tour, beyond its benefits to aristocratic prestige, was an invaluable source of learning and experience. Given the power of imagination and humanity’s tendency to project rosy happiness on to incomplete pictures of desire, the genuine article should be tested and understood before committed to in cases of grand risk (and others, where possible). One should stay mindful that experience can never be complete—there are as many things to see, places to go, and people to meet as there are stars in the sky. (Well, maybe not *that* many.)

2. Do not neglect basic pleasures. I’ve discovered that it is in the hearts of some dreamers to think of enduring extremely hard situations with gusto, underestimating that one’s state of mind is very different in a situation with low security, food, etc., or a hostile environment. Carry Maslow’s hierarchy of needs in your baggage train, and muster creature comforts and allies of friendship to your comforting advantage. Ensure that you will be comfortable where you will go, or take pains to ensure that the absence of comfort is completely and utterly justified. Per #1, spend some time roleplaying the discomfort you shall be in, and see if your passion is maintained.

3. Analyze your predilections. Most people, and perhaps most businesses, turn to self-analysis only when they’ve failed at something. Instead, analyze yourself in all seasons and situations. Most of all, analyze your passions and predilections; strive to know where they come from, and why they motivate you to seek something. Celebrate them, for passions and inclinations are part of what makes you alive. Those fires will not vanish under a microscope; they may reveal details that help you stoke them hotter. If you know why you want to do something, you are probably more equipped to reap the rewards with fewer pains.

4. Become a totalitarian of your personal time, at least at first. Time is too precious to squander, especially early on when decisions and investments will be magnified by the longer temporal span they pass through. It’s human nature to procrastinate and take things for granted. Become aware that every minute of your life takes you closer to death; don’t fear this, but use it to develop a keen awareness of the power which you hold to use the time available to you. Do things with a commanding zeal for life. And do not confuse this with “work yourself to death.” Being zealous means confronting your obligations and pains with the most Stoic and straightforward thrust, which shall leave you with the greatest possible bloc of free time for your passions and pleasures.

[tushantin]

ZeaLity, thanks for making the thread! I was hoping to start this since forever, but just didn't get the time to.

I'll read through your post eventually, though I did find the summary of it quite fascinating. Although I don't buy into things regarding "what's right" or "what's wrong" -- my philosophy and views are more complex and sophisticated than that. Just one question though:

"There is no such thing as a soul or the supernatural, meaning this physical existence is all we have" <------ How sure are you about that? XD

Core Buddhism doesn't intend to alienate zeal or desire. The "desire" which is translated to from the other word has a slightly different definition shift.

Y'know, this is fascinating because I've always had a hunch that "desire" was not an especially good translation of whatever the actual original term is. Can you explain a bit more about what the words that are translated as "desire" or "attachment" actually mean if you have the time? I ask because I tend to have a knee-jerk negative reaction to Buddhist rhetoric due to the fact I see desire as, well, desirable. I imagine that's more than a bit superficial. I'd like to take advantage of a multilingual comrade to correct my assumptions if I have the chance

I always suspected "emptiness" did not quite evoke the correct connotations too, but I'm not sure.

Ah! I've forgotten about this. Sorry for such a late response, but I'll get back to you on that soon. Though I do agree they have varied connotation shifts.