/lit/ - Literature

>>13565685

>>12595075
Weak bait. Utilitarians have uninronically had it figured since Epicurus. If you take utilitarianism and tweak it by acknowledging that variance in the nature of valuing agents leads to non-universal (but overlapping) utility conditions, the dichotomies evaporate. Also stop conflating objectivity with universality.

>>11720833
I don't like Sam's politics very much, but he's right about objective morality (not that he originated these ideas, they've been a part of utilitarian philosophy for a long time).

You must realize that what you call 'subjective experience' is just a facet of overall objective reality. You are objectively different from another person, and that is why your experience is objectively different... So keeping in mind that everything is fundamentally objective in nature, it is easy to see that: Yes there will be outliers, yes our priorities will vary to the extent that we do, but also that our most basic and important utilities will be shared by the majority. The vast majority of people will not enjoy burning themselves on a stove or living under constant threat of being murdered. We can accomodate the outliers as much as possible, but ultimately morality is about collective utility.

Now, I think Sam is a little optimistic about the potential for some populations to become compatible/capable moral agents, or that average people are even ready to understand objective morality. It may very well be that taking a more libertarian approach would better serve the collective utility of (some) human populations than attempting more complex feats of management, and this can be taken into account when making a utilitarian calculation. Technically though, he's right.

I'm struggling with this weird idea that no matter what rational course I put myself on to accept responsibility for others, other agents in whatever capacity in order to bring myself happiness, that no matter what course I take, the future intervenes upon the legitimacy of any choice, a new grand event, not a disaster but a state of technological bliss in which we are all spoiled, can remove the burden from responsibility, or that, in the opposite, a disaster or social conflict, creates societal or environmental changes that make other responsibility, other loyalties central, that the legitimacy of any rational course of action that takes responsibility for agents is not going to be more than a purpose for living that lasts as long as the legitimacy of the responsibility lasts, and that I'm not in control of that legitimacy, that no one is in control of the legitimacy, that I will live pragmatically and that most of the time that will entail living in a delusion of purpose.

I know that this is how materialists come to grips with doing good, maintaining good, being open and flexible, communicating and bargaining, but this delusional thinking that isn't really delusional [democracy is the least worst option] is an absurdity that is exhausting. I understand why religious people convert, I get how the aesthetic binds your belief, how you get past the pragmatic and into the divinity, I just don't think I have the patience for either delusions anymore. I'm at a point where I know I'm going to hate how unconcerned I am right now later when I'm full of vigour and pride, but how does anyone live without grandeur, not even the majestic painting above, but the eye that sees the painting, the vision of the painting as I look up, grandness felt, special place, here, home.

You really have to learn to hate spring, to hate nature, or at least be indifferent to spring, to nature, as it is to you. That a tree doesn't speak except that I speak, that an animal appearing at your side is coincidence, that I can momentarily be inebriated enough to view this world as I once did, to get myself to feel awe...and, I need to focus, to get better at maintaining my purpose. That's what i need, a way to maintain this purpose, [that I know can be gone tomorrow, can have all legitimacy removed from it, that the conditions can change and take everything away, that I could be a new farmer at the beginning of a hundred year drought, that my body will fail me, that my eyes and ears will deceive me, that the conditions for love will always remain unspoken by individuals, groups, communities, nations, that I'll wander in thought through a few decades of peace and watch my children meet with unprecedented challenges.]

In arms, surrounded by those who would fight, I could sleep, in faith, surrounded by Him who would protect, I could sleep, in material, surrounded by the wealth earned over a life, I could sleep. What brings me to my place and not another is easy to see, legitimacy.

>>10886820
I think he's stating an ought where he should consider a fact. You are raised by those that want you only to be nourished and then you rebel by gorging, and slowly you find either an edifying balance, a la Epicuriuan moderation, or continue gorging on novelty, though even then selective in what fare fills your banquet table. People over time come to define themselves more and more selectively within their pleasures and leisure, declare themselves by smacking lips and loud burps, consuming their pacman path to being. If you don't believe me, you should watch a driving lesson video where the beginners field of vision is compared to an advanced drivers. Developing tunnel vision to your task while maintain your route is natural.

Seneca would not have done well instructing teenage boys....

>>10788951
>Death, the most frightening of bad things, is nothing to us; since when we exist death is not yet present, and when death is present, then we do not exist

>>10779752
The lack of focus on Epicurus here and, worse, the equating of Epicureanism with hedonism is sad and ridiculous. Especially for all the NEETs who are basically incapable of enacting the true aims of Stoicism, which is to engage in the epicentres of society. Epicureanism specifically tells you to retreat from that chaos, but it also teaches you to hold friendship as one of the highest values. This, along with moderation, is the cure for most people here that are struggling.

I can't believe how much people here and elsewhere buy into Stoicism without seeing how inhumane it is or how ignorant it is. It reminds me of American style Positive psychology, except without the hope.

can a person simultaneously be enlightened and overweight?

or are they more inclined to be underweight?

Best introductory Epicurus book?
Something simple and short for a brainlet such as myself.

>>10340425
t.

Give me a quick rundown on this guy, is he worth reading?

leave being the biggest brainlet in western philosophy to me

>>10038151
Fucking stupid hedonists just don't get it.

I haven't read the book, but I'm the one who posted those radio recordings with /lit/ authors. I've been experimenting within this genre and am interested in the space between the popular song, the bardic tradition, and audio drama.

Current 93 and Ligotti did some wonderful work that I believe is as good as the audio in this version of Becketts's Play.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HsSvd4zfQUI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lxZpEFJhO6k
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s2QJ0FYE3pw

Personally, to ask whether or not a audio drama is /lit/ is just being oblivious to the fact that ancient poems like the Odyssey come from the oral tradition and required accompaniment. The entire history of travelling bards are interlocked with the written. Yet, for some reason, this is not something discussed when talking about Serious literature. I think the idea of denigrating prose, especially some musical prose that lack substance, is a dehumanising act that is counter to any aim /lit/ might ever have, if it aims to have one. If a book was popular for its prose alone, it would give me hope that people are finally listening to each other again instead of just exchanging pre-configured information.

Oral culture.

Epicurus

Then read this.

>>9864159
Back to the Greeks.

Plan for these cheat times. And stop with the Stoic bullshit and come have a talk with Epicurus.

Moderate your consumption to seek the most enjoyment from life.

Seek companionship.

Back to the Greeks.

Moderate your consumption so that these moments are blissful.

Also, learn more about your personality so that you understand what stresses you and when you need to de-stress - and then do so in as health a manner as possible. Some people are elevated by being social and some people are drained by being social. Learn which one you are and do so accordingly.

Pursue intimate relationships.

Back to the Greeks.

>>9565004
He says yes, and advocates hanging out with your friends very often is way better than romantic relationships, and stopped having sex himself.

>>8439290
>There's nothing more important than personal happiness in this life.
But that's true.

Epicurus was about retreating from public life into a little hippy commune with your friends and live a simple life and taking it easy.

>>7513192

What is the best book for getting into Epicurus?

Stoicism vs Epicureanism

Which field of thought has the better philosophy? The better lit? Pic is my opinion, Epicurus was the shit