/lit/ - Literature

Just read Plato, you fucking 12 year old.

>>11208173
Tits or gtfo

>>11208173
Thanks for your contribution.

>>11208173
This may sound overly simplistic, but I think if you hear me out, it will follow that most moral behavior is a consequence of this philosophy.

The best and most productive way to cultivate happiness is through empathy and emotional reciprication. This creates a positive feedback loop, where good feelings lead to more good feelings, becoming more intense and permanant as emotional bonds develop.

So the key to happiness is, essentially, empathy, the ability to share in each others joys. Strong emotional bonds also have the side benefit of mitigating pain, which is important, but secondary to maximizing pleasure and happiness.

Being empathetic, then applying that sensitivity towards our relationship with others, is the basis for all moral action. It will do you no good to be overly empathetic, as circumstances will limit your application of said empathy, but generally actions which destroy our ability to feel empathy are evil, such as hate, violence, betrayal, ect. They are also evil because in practice, they destroy our connections to those we love and result in less overall happiness. Likewise, actions such as kindness, love, generosity, not only increase our ability to empathize with others, but also help apply our empathy and create empathic bonds with other people, which increase our happiness.

There is no universal circumstance which applies to all situations, but generally, we must use our intuition, experience, and observations to determine the best course of action in each circumstance, with the goal being to maximize happiness, and, if possible, to minimize pain.

>>11208173
>>11208206
There is a 2500 year literary tradition of talking about these subjects. Not only are your "common sense" presuppositions not original - they're cliche btw - they also don't help anyone. If you really want to get into Philosophy, go start with Plato.

>>11208173
Having a sense of purpose is also essential towards ones own pursuit of happiness, as is having a sense of belonging.

Often, the impetus to act in moral fashion are the diminishing returns we receive from selfish action, or even the loss of happiness we receive from inaction.

All empathy and reciprocation is an investment in happiness, and when that investment is threatened, it is only right and natural to want to defend it.

In terms of justice, the goal is to mitigate the guilt of allowing a harm to come to pass and rob us of our joy. The goal is not to punish the offender, but to mitigate the harm to our loved ones and society overall.

People behave in moral fashion because it is in their own best interests to do so, and 'altruism' as we tend to think of it is really looking forward and analyzing the consequences of action or inaction to our own happiness over the course of our lifetime.

We create and abide by rules and laws because those rules are ultimately to our own benefit, even if individually, they may occasionally act to our detriment, overall, we profit from the sanctity of law and the trappings of order.

Altruism, is therefore simply emotional intelligence, the ability to act on ones own behalf in the long term, placing ones future happiness and overall well being ahead of shortsighted decisions which result in damaged empathy or further misery.

>>11208229
Thanks for your contribution. Are you available to come to my house and smell my dick as well? I’d like your anonymous opinion on that. Perhaps you could wear a mask.

>>11208239
Sometimes the truth hurts, buckaroo.

>>11208249

Sure does. Women get cucked twice as much as men. Look it up.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ruef7aYCEbc

>>11208173
>it's another "uncultured utilitarian individualist believes he is original" episode
I wish Americans were nuked; maybe this board would become slightly more interesting.

>>11208229
>>11208204
>>11208193
>>11208187

Right now, you are all being very rude, judgemental, arrogant, and generally unpleasant, which is contributing to your lack of happiness.

It is only common courtesy to approach someones musings with open mindedness and empathy if you expect them to reciprocate, something which you all seem to fail to grasp.

But thats okay, you are all my precious little social retards and you are free to remain your surly little selves, I will love you no less for it. I recognize your hostility for what it is, your emotional insecurity and lack of trust and faith in other human beings.

In fact, I was not proposing that my ideas were in any sense 'original', but was soliciting suggestions as to who shares similiar values, principles and moral concepts among your vaunted scholars and philosophers so that I might learn more, or challenge my beliefs so that I can build upon them.

Peace be with you brothers, if we have learned nothing here today, then I have at least set forth my principles and the foundation for my understanding for morality, and that sets my mind at ease and my soul at rest.

It may sound trite to you, shallow, and maybe it is, but everyone has to start somewhere, and I am not about to simply substitute some ancient text for own musings on the say so of some institutional authority or social coercion.

>>11208173
If suffering is a consequence of life, and there is always more suffering than joy in life, then the correct decision will always be suicide. Back to the drawing board.

>>11208268
Pain as a negative value is a false metric.

>>11208265
Try being honest and just saying "fuck off" instead of cooped up inside your hole sniffing your own rancid gasses. Admitting to being angry, resentful and expelling those emotions is better than becoming some psychotic narcissist retard like you. Anime freak. Dumb avatar. Fantasy brainlet.

>>11208258
What does that have to do with the fact that you've never actually read any philosophy?

>>11208265
>people were rude to me on 4chan

>>11208271
All your presuppositions are "false metrics". You haven't even attempted to justify your axioms like "the best and most productive way to cultivate happiness is x" or "pain does not have a negative value" (err ok fine, but are you gonna justify that or just expect us to take it for granted?). This is why you need to start with the Greeks. Wrap your brain around the inductive argumentation of Socrates and realise how trite definitions like yours (upon which your whole shitty "system" rests) inevitably get BTFO by even the most simplistic interrogation.

>>11208265
If it makes you feel any better, I've skimmed The Republic, read the Dialogues and slogged through Atlas Shrugged.

My friend was a philosophy major so I pick up quite a bit from him, expecially Locke, Russeau, and other like minded thinkers.

>>11208271
If pain is not a negative value, would the moral individual rather eat a sandwich, or eat a sandwich with a nail inside of it?

>>11208299
All axioms are built upon other axioms. There is no source, at some point you have to settle upon your intuition. You rolls your dice and takes your chances.

>>11208299
If he wants to suggest some axioms and investigate the end results I don't see a problem with that. The real issue is that there's no way he, or any sane person, actually lives by the axioms he's suggested.

>>11208302
Its not a negative value in the sense that it is not in direct contrast to happiness, ie, the two values do not cancel each other out. It is still best to avoid it, however.

>>11208315
Well, please, then, elaborate. I never claimed to be anything but an amatuer, i am merely stating my principles as I understand them.

Challenge me, teach me. I'm listening.

Look, I'm sure that you're a really nice guy but your lack of understanding on this subject is very clear from your posts. Also, the enlightened le super logical "I've figured out the meaning of life" schtick just makes you seem like a bloviating dunderhead.

Seriously, please consider reading Plato and then moving on from there.

>>11208319
Why avoid it? There's no moral reason if its incommensurate with happiness.

>>11208328
I've read Plato.
I didn't find his musings all that useful.

>>11208300
>slogged through Atlas Shrugged

>>11208311
>>11208315
Yes, it's more that the counter-intuitive axioms are sort of just left floating there without even addressing the most obvious potential objections or questions... and then this sort of pompous laziness... unwillingness to consult anything that might help him refine his definitions, ideas and arguments... just a sort of self-satisfaction with a very rudimentary set of ideas. Not the sort of mindset one would expect from someone who really cares about the best way to achieve happiness.

OP you really do seem fit to start reading Plato's Socratic dialogues. They're easy and you are basically ripe for them, they concern exactly the things you are concerned about.

>>11208337
If you were faced with a choice between living a life with a fixed amount of happiness, and a fixed amount of pain, and living a life with the exact same amount of happiness, but more pain, which would you prefer?

>>11208343
>addressing the most obvious potential objections or questions

why do you think I am soliciting your opinion?

>>11208342
>enjoying Atlas Shrugged

>>11208354
To indulge yourself.

>>11208343
>>11208328

So how does plato relate to my musings? Does he challenge them? Reaffirm them?

>>11208359
Isn't that premise of all philosophy?

>>11208323
The truth of the matter is that when it comes to morality we already know what is good for the most part. If there are good things (or bad things) which are not known, then the only way to figure out what they are is from some higher authority. If you don't believe in a higher authority, you're stuck with what's obvious.

In general if you want to understand what people consider to be moral, the following will give you the answer: morality is the instruction of the strongest. A person's particular morality derives from what they consider the strongest.

>>11208355
I presumed "slog" implied difficulty

>>11208348
Well, in real life I would choose the one with less pain. But under your axioms I might flip a coin to choose, because the two cases you've given are equivalent in value.

>>11208365
People spend all day discussing 'what' is moral. I want to explain 'why' its moral.

>>11208360
Socrates entire philosophical mission in the dialogues is to figure out how one attains happiness (eudamonia), which he thinks depends upon learning the proper knowledge necessary to act well as a human being, to achieve "excellence" or "virtue" (agathon) in the realm of human living. The dialogues are full of entertaining and rigorous attempts to discover this knowledge by different means (primarily by trying to attain correct definitions, to capture the essence of something like "bravery" or "love"), and often end in confusion and dissatisfaction, but nevertheless usually pointing toward some potential answer or solution.

>>11208368
No, i think you misunderstood me.

Your first priority is to maximize happiness. This takes precedence over your second priority, which is to minimize pain. The two objectives are both important, but the first is in every way superior.

>>11208173
Out of curiosity OP, how old are you?

>>11208374
Something is moral because the highest authority said it was moral. If you're a Christian, God is the highest authority, and what he says is moral is moral. If you're a Stoic, the highest authority is Nature itself, and whatever is natural is moral.

>>11208376
But Socrates was more a deconstructionist, yes? He never really put forth an agenda so much as dissembled others.

Socrotes also seems to place an emphasis on knowledge and denies the role of instinct and intution in acheiving happiness.

What does Socrotes define happiness as? Is it quantifiable?

>>11208389
So you obey morality out of fear of consequence?

>>11208388
embarressingly old, but not so old i no longer care what people think.

>>11208391
That's not what the word "deconstructionist" means.
>>11208396
No, dipshit.

>>11208380
>Your first priority is to maximize happiness. This takes precedence over your second priority, which is to minimize pain. The two objectives are both important, but the first is in every way superior.
What is happiness? Minimising pain and suffering seems like a much more tangible (and immediately beneficial) outcome than maximising happiness. Happiness, if we're talking about "peaks" and highs of human emotion, is often fleeting, difficult to elicit artificially. Contentment and a subtle, persisting joy on the other hand, is a lot easier.
>>11208391
Socrates very definitely put forward an "agenda", which was to inspire a "love of wisdom" in people. His attempts at "deconstruction" were to demonstrate the frailty and ineffectiveness of people's unquestioned convictions so that they would (ideally) be filled with a desire to seek out truth, and help discover it.

as for happiness, I don't klnow enough, but the crucial greek word is "eudamonia". I'm not suggesting Plato and Socrates as a definitive answer to your questions, because there's a lot to criticise (as with all thinkers). The point is to realise the depth of thinking that these questions demand.

>>11208404
aren't we a scabborous little butthole. Wipe your ass with sandpaper, do we?

>>11208405
Maybe depth is not what is needed to understand life and the principles at stake. Complexity for complexities sake is not an ends to itself.

Just because something is simple doesn't mean it should be discarded. Have you ever read Hemmingway?

>>11208402
Give me a number so that I know whether to chuckle at you because it's cute that tykes like you think these things or so that I can feel sorry for a 30 year old narcissist's dead and dilapidated brain.

>>11208405
as i mentioned, the overall value of happiness is intensity times DURATION. Which is exactly as you described.

>>11208413
No.

>>11208411
brain-trapped by vertical metaphor.
>>11208415
yes but the definition of the sorts of happiness i mentioned (which, you are right, involve duration) is what we often describe as the state of the human psyche in the absence of stress, pain and suffering

>>11208420
>state of the human psyche in the absence of stress, pain and suffering
when is that ever the case?
when is there ever a moment in which you can find no discomfort?

>>11208418
12 it is

>>11208428
not "no discomfort", but discomfort reduced. for instance, i have OCD and depression, and i am most "content" and "happy" in the absence of intrusive and depressing thoughts, the stress that triggers them and the frustrating . even so, my resilience to these things is much better than it used to be, and my personal satisfaction with life is much increased as a result of how the degree of suffering experienced during these episodes has decreased over time

>>11208259
You fucking retard hahaaha.
Where did OP ever state to be original. All he wanted was to discuss his views ans his own little philosophy. It hink he has many valid points and as a pragmatist I congratulate him because I believe he is much more successfull, happy and content with his life than the 4chan basement dwellers that try to kill anyone that tells them of the real sun thats outside their little cave.

>>11208439
sorry
*the frustrating compulsions that i often perform as a result of them

>I don't usually spend a lot of time navel gazing when in comes to morality or philosophy, but I figure a man ought to have principles, and he ought to know what those principles are.

>>11208441
Those typos show your assblasted nature, OP.

>>11208441
hi op

>>11208380
So you're modifying your original claim slightly by saying there are two goals in life, to maximize personal happiness, and minimize personal pain. This means that moral behavior is no longer just actions which maximize your happiness value, but actions which maximize happiness and minimize pain.

Under your system, it is better to eat a sandwich with a nail in it than to skip lunch. This is because any slight increase in happiness outweighs any degree of pain.

>>11208439
while i agree that pain is not conducive to happiness, it is not its antithesis.

>>11208473
>Under your system, it is better to eat a sandwich with a nail in it than to skip lunch.

that doesn't really follow

more like, "tis better to have loved and lost.."

>>11208478
yes... i'm not saying it is its "antithesis", because that would be more of a definitional or metaphysical claim. but i can say that, in many if not most circumstances, pain is not only "not conducive" to happiness, but actively deleterious to it.

>>11208396
I don't obey morality necessarily out of fear of consequence, although I think its a motivator in some cases. I obey morality because I know what I'm supposed to do once its been told to me, and doing what I'm supposed to makes me happy.

Before it gets asked, yes, some people consider themselves the highest authority, the strongest, etc.

>>11208404
fuck off

>>11208473
Basically, its like this.

Say you spend 40 years in prison and die when you're 70 years old.

Does that mean you 'lost'? Or is that time just a sunk cost?

Does pain somehow invalidate the all the joy and happiness you've felt during your life?

>>11208481
"tis better to have loved and lost than to have never loved at all" is the same comparison as eating a sandwich with a nail vs. no sandwich.

Are you just supposed to quit life or throw away everything just because you've experienced more pain during your life than you have happiness? Does the pain make your happiness any less meaningful?

>>11208509
If the life lived is simply the 70 years, and the 40 years in prison was sufficient to make you unhappier than you can make up for, then it would have been better to never lived at all.

If you believe in the eternality of the soul, the equation changes, and it changes even more depending on what you believe happens after death.

>>11208173
>I figure a man ought to have principles

How do you figure this, based on happiness?

>>11208173
>I think anyone who tells you otherwise is bullshitting, they just want to justify their own misery.

A false dichotomy. One can act moral without it having anything to do with happiness or misery or even how one feels at all. The passions are the passions and they interfere with the work of the soul.

Post squid sister feet (bare)

>>11208206
Why is it so obvious that youre philosophically immature? Probably because you assume that we know what "empathy" means

That conflicts with my favorite novella Candide.