/lit/ - Literature

Not defending or advocating for it btw, just want to hear an argument against it.

>>7276058
>Hi, I am a sociopath, and have no conception of humanity, but that's okay, because #YOLO
Literally you.

>>7276058
Because it brings me pleasure to do so

>>7276058
You are hardwired to care about other people unless you are a literal psychopath.

>>7276064
Same here. I have been struggling to come up with any justifiable reason against a purely hedonistic approach to life where satisfaction and happiness of the self is of utmost and sole importance.

Would like to hear a solid argument against that.

>>7276070

>>worry/struggle
>it brings me pleasure

The act of worrying/struggling is by definition not pleasurable. Please take your sophistry somewhere else.

there's no right or wrong, values and scientiic certainities dont exist, so i reject it aesthetically.

>>7276074

what argument are you looking for, exactly?

The point you seem to make for selfish hedonism is that we don't have to suffer consequences for our actions when we die, but I'm not sure why you feel this is an argument for the position - nearly everyone accepts that being moral doesn't always obtain yourself a hedonistic positive outcome. It should surely be clear that no argument for morality hinges on the idea that it is ultimately beneficial for oneself in a

>>7276085

You sound a LOT like John from Brave New World. He too rejected something similar to what OP proposed. Really didn't go down well for him.

Aesthetic rejection of an ideology/lifestyle might drive you to lead an unhappy lifestyle full of misery which is undesirable by definition.

>>7276058
It only works if you're a woman and then it's the default mode of being and everything conspires to support you in being a selfish cunt.

>>7276095

I'm not OP. The argument for lack of consequences after death was made by OP.

(And I agree with you when you say that it's obvious)

I still would like to hear a solid argument against selfish hedonism.

Y'all should Google "kin selection".

>>7276073
Objectivism isn't about not having any empathy or saying 'fuck everyone else'. What about loving people for purely logical reasons?

It's more about acting in reasons you know are sensible and will benefit you, and not doing something if it goes against you.

>>7276082
>what is delayed gratification

how old are you, kid

>>7276096
>Aesthetic rejection of an ideology/lifestyle might drive you to lead an unhappy lifestyle full of misery
dunno why that should be a consequence. for example i reject 99% of music out there, but it doesnt make me depressed. if there's a majority consensus about something "enjoyable" and i'm outside this consensus, it doesnt follow that i'm secretely hurting my self.

>>7276119
Let me clarify. Aesthetic Rejection of objectivist hedonism will lead you to an unhappy lifestyle.By rejecting 99% of the music out there and choosing the 1% that you like, you ARE ascribing to a hedonism. You're choosing to indulge in the things that you enjoy.

Aesthetic rejection of hedonism might lead you to embrace the 99% as well. That would make you depressed and fuck you up.

>>7276129
no, hedonism is too pleasure oriented. i can also aesthetically accept something which is repulsive on physical level of senses.

>>7276058
The humanity is the worst species in terms of hedonism: our pleasures stem from hard work whereas our jouissances are nothing but fleeting and we are aware of them only when they are finished.
Even worse, the more we satisfy our desires, the more we see them diminishing, making us understand that they are phony, the less we need to satisfy them for a while.
Even worse than the hard work, even worse than the evanescence is the lassitude from our pleasures.
The more we enjoy an activity, the less it remains to enjoy: we become jaded and, even with all the wealth in the world to fight this lassitude thanks to a diversity of entertainment, we do not escape the boredom, in other words, dukkha persists.
The tragedy of the pleasure is that we do not know when we experience it WHEN WE EXPERIENCE IT, since it seems that the intensity of the pleasure is inversely proportional to its duration.
If, by some miracle, we are aware of our (mild) pleasure, we may then worry of its disappearance.

>>7276058
>We only are alive once

not confirmed

>>7276082
Wrong, at least for physical struggle. Exertion causes the release of endorphin which causes pleasure. People that love sports are literal junkies.

>>7276058
>we only are alive once
Amazing verbal gymnastics to avoid saying YOLO, anon.

>>7276197
>you were nothing
>became something
>become nothing again
>i will never be something ever again ;_;
REINCARNATioN IS IMPOSSIBLE GUYZ

Seek not death in the error of your life, neither procure ye destruction by the works of your hands. For God made not death, neither hath he pleasure in the destruction of the living. For he created all things that they might be: and he made the nations of the earth for health: and there is no poison of destruction in them, nor kingdom of hell upon the earth. For justice is perpetual and immortal.

But the wicked with works and words have called it to them: and esteeming it a friend have fallen away, and have made a covenant with it: because they are worthy to be of the part thereof.

For they have said, reasoning with themselves, but not right: The time of our life is short and tedious, and in the end of a man there is no remedy, and no man hath been known to have returned from hell: For we are born of nothing, and after this we shall be as if we had not been: for the breath in our nostrils is smoke: and speech a spark to move our heart, Which being put out, our body shall be ashes, and our spirit shall be poured abroad as soft air, and our life shall pass away as the trace of a cloud, and shall be dispersed as a mist, which is driven away by the beams of the sun, and overpowered with the heat thereof: And our name in time shall be forgotten, and no man shall have any remembrance of our works. For our time is as the passing of a shadow, and there is no going back of our end: for it is fast sealed, and no man returneth.

Come therefore, and let us enjoy the good things that are present, and let us speedily use the creatures as in youth. Let us fill ourselves with costly wine, and ointments: and let not the flower of the time pass by us. Let us crown ourselves with roses, before they be withered: let no meadow escape our riot. Let none of us go without his part in luxury: let us everywhere leave tokens of joy: for this is our portion, and this our lot. Let us oppress the poor just man, and not spare the widow, nor honour the ancient grey hairs of the aged.

But let our strength be the law of justice: for that which is feeble, is found to be nothing worth. Let us therefore lie in wait for the just, because he is not for our turn, and he is contrary to our doings, and upbraideth us with transgressions of the law, and divulgeth against us the sins of our way of life. [He boasteth that he hath the knowledge of God, and calleth himself the son of God. He is become a censurer of our thoughts. He is grievous unto us, even to behold: for his life is not like other men' s, and his ways are very different.

>>7276221
We are esteemed by him as triflers, and he abstaineth from our ways as from filthiness, and he preferreth the latter end of the just, and glorieth that he hath God for his father. Let us see then if his words be true, and let us prove what shall happen to him, and we shall know what his end shall be. For if he be the true son of God, he will defend him, and will deliver him from the hands of his enemies. Let us examine him by outrages and tortures, that we may know his meekness and try his patience. Let us condemn him to a most shameful death: for there shall be respect had unto him by his words.

These things they thought, and were deceived: for their own malice blinded them. And they knew not the secrets of God, nor hoped for the wages of justice, nor esteemed the honour of holy souls. For God created man incorruptible, and to the image of his own likeness he made him. But by the envy of the devil, death came into the world: And they follow him that are of his side.

>>7276221
There's not an actual counter-argument to that worldview.

>>7276223

But the souls of the just are in the hand of God, and the torment of death shall not touch them. In the sight of the unwise they seemed to die: and their departure was taken for misery: And their going away from us, for utter destruction: but they are in peace. And though in the sight of men they suffered torments, their hope is full of immortality. Afflicted in few things, in many they shall be well rewarded: because God hath tried them, and found them worthy of himself.

As gold in the furnace he hath proved them, and as a victim of a holocaust he hath received them, and in time there shall be respect had to them. The just shall shine, and shall run to and fro like sparks among the reeds. They shall judge nations, and rule over people, and their Lord shall reign for ever. They that trust in him, shall understand the truth: and they that are faithful in love shall rest in him: for grace and peace is to his elect. But the wicked shall be punished according to their own devices: who have neglected the just, and have revolted from the Lord.

For he that rejecteth wisdom, and discipline, is unhappy: and their hope is vain, and their labours without fruit, and their works unprofitable. Their wives are foolish, and their children wicked. Their offspring is cursed: for happy is the barren: and the undefiled, that hath not known bed in sin: she shall have fruit in the visitation of holy souls. And the eunuch, that hath not wrought iniquity with his hands, nor thought wicked things against God: for the precious gift of faith shall be given to him, and a most acceptable lot in the temple of God. For the fruit of good labours is glorious, and the root of wisdom never faileth.

But the children of adulterers shall not come to perfection, and the seed of the unlawful bed shall be rooted out. And if they live long, they shall be nothing regarded, and their last old age shall be without honour. And if they die quickly, they shall have no hope, nor speech of comfort in the day of trial. For dreadful are the ends of a wicked race.

>>7276082
You deign to tell me what feels good?

>>7276082
Tell that to Plato.

Really excited I got to say that unironically in my lifetime.

>>7276099
Did a girl say something mean to you at school today, son?

>>7276573
Probs laughed at him for being a virgin.

>>7276573
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BiR8VDeuNDE

Just stating the facts, fam. Males exist biologically to get consumed by the ur-Womb. The female delights in being a narcissistic all-devourer. One may defy nature, but only to know the immutable horror of its true intentions.

>>7276573
virgin detected

nothing, some people just aren't attractive enough to engage in it and will become resentful.

lmao your philosophy is literally YOLO by drake

pleasures are fleeting. living solely for pleasure usually just means the sex, drugs, and rock n' roll lifestyle, and while it's actually p fun it's ultimately empty and fleeting. people have been finding better things to live for than getting turnt tonite #YOLO since the Mesopotamians.

everything in moderation

>>7276058
>wrong with
Well I would say there is something fundamentally flawed about where you are deriving your "rights" and your "wrongs"

But essentially, you are correct. But I fail to see how the correct mode of living in the face of those facts would be "hedonistic objectivism".

It's just the boogey man of Christian thought that has been drilled into atheists and christians alike.

>If you don't obey us and accept our morality, then you will be nothing more than an animal given to his basest desires because this what is actually the most pleasurable way to live a life.

Please. Very few actually want that and believe it leads to a satisfying life. Try it if you want to though.

>>7276058
Because focussing on maximising your own happiness or pleasure does not maximise your happiness or pleasure. See 'the pleasure paradox':

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_hedonism

>>7276584

>if you're not retarded you're a virgin

thats not how it works anon

>>7276058
>We only are alive once and don't have to live with any repercussions when we die.

[citation needed]

>>7276058
Most modern hedonism and "objective" thought is really neo-hedonism and scientism.

Neo-hedonism is a false materialist philosophy, its actually metaphysical.
People really accept what is most pleasurable from what they are told is so.
However, they are unable to commit to this indulgence themselves, and so are pulled in two directions. They supposedly "know" what is happiness and also don't want or feel the need to actually pursue it to the end.

To get around this the neo-hedonist ideologue will worship idols of hedonism.

People who are supposedly able to enjoy totally. sex drugs money violence, someone who can enjoy all at the most inhuman levels.

celebrities or rock stars, rappers, famous politicians who embezzle, even criminals. Anyone who "does not give a fuck" yet also does not cross one of the few remaining ideological lines (overtly racist or, etc. depends entirely on the individual culture here)

However these people--the idols--don't actually exist. Neo-hedonism demands the idols of hedonistic worship which are only conceptual and not real; and so the neo-hedonist is essentially a materialist cuckold who is worshiping someone else who is pretending to pursue a metaphysical impossibility

This similar pseudo relation exists in scientism as well to a lesser extent. There are actual authentic scientism-ists who understand what science can do for humanity and see it as part of a larger explanation for our plan as a species and our future.

However, most scientism acolytes are really just believing in a "feeling" they have that the dominance of science is a historical inevitability. This means they are in-authentically bowing to a perceived power and not actually believing in science the way science itself demands.
This is just the surface.

DUDE HEDONIS MLMAO

>>7276696
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QXRkDc8Lmn4

>>7276702
im giving this post a strong 10. top quality

>>7276058
True happiness is achieved by helping others be happy, true selflessness is true happiness. If everyone was selfish no one would be happy, if everyone was selfless everyone would be happy.
Happiness is only real when shared.

>>7276759
Altruism is the most intelligent form of egoism tbh.

Someone on another thread posted a DFW interview where he sorta addresses your question, OP. Basically what he said:

'Clearly it (to be happy) means something different from whatever I wanna do; I wanna take this cup and throw it right now, I have every right to, I should! We’ve seen it with children; that’s not happiness.

That feeling of having to abey every impulse and gratify every desire, it seems to me to be a strange kind of slavery.

Nobody talks about it as such, though. They talk about it as a freedom of choice, and you have the right to have things; spend this much money and you can have this stuff.'

>>7276058

Rand just dressed up everyday respect and friendship in a bunch of terminology and then handwaved away, because she was abnormal or ignorant, the fact that empathizing with other people removes a lot of anger from your life and will also give you access to a wider variety of pleasure and knowledge.

She's like a 4 year old screaming that she hates vegetables. She will only accept people who are immediately to her liking and stay that way. Seriously look at the history of her organization and how much of a shit show it is.

If you want to understand how to actually be happy and effective in the world, study the stoics and the epicurians.

People are fucking idiots so I'm not going to bother trying to convince anyone but you are a perspective emanating from your body, obviously you are the most important person to you. Therefore what feels good is good, what feels bad is bad

To feel the most good, and all that it entails, is the point of life

>>7277075
>well eating a whole cheesecake would feel p good right now, guess I'll do it, thanks philosophy!

Literally the worldview of a child

>>7277075
[limbic system intensifies]

>>7277075
arsenic tastes like nuts, you should use it to make pesto for your pasta.

We already live in a hedonistic society. Think about it, our whole value system is based on self pleasure. The whole capitalist rat race lifestyle of getting a good job to make money to afford nice things is motivated by self serving hedonistic impulses. The end goal is a pleasurable life surrounded by pleasurable things.

>>7276058
>Why should we worry about any one else or their struggles and not solely focus on our own lives?

if that were the case your bitch ass would've been dead a long time ago.

>>7276058
>We only are alive once and don't have to live with any repercussions when we die
Logically fa'se

>>7276112
love isn't logical. it's not logical to risk your life to save another's life but people do it. you can reason it out in various ways but at the core of it is not.

>>7277139
but life is a balancing act and also the economic machine has too much inertia. if you get in the way you'll be ran over. honestly the only real hedonists are sociopaths (literally by definition), psychopaths and children as they aren't emotionally developed.

You can have that philosophy, but philosophy is an extension of the mind which is a product of our big brains that came about from evolutionary selection pressures.

Your YOLO philosophy will lead to the end of your genetic line, and in 5000 years the type of people who are more concerned with raising healthy offspring than anything else will be the ones who are around.

You went so backwards that you're forgetting the point of life that everyone from bacteria to fish to monkeys know.

>>7276058
Because I don't want you to be happy, I want you to make me happy and I will cause "repercussions" if you don't conform. Now, of course you can defend, but well... that won't be that pleasurable and happy life you want. Then you might ask someone to help you... but they will want something in return I suppose, so you have to focus on their lives a little bit, unfortunately.

>>7277276
>Intelligent, Nihilistic and with a Wicked Sense of Humor

>>7276058
"Now, householders, of those contemplatives & brahmans who hold this doctrine, hold this view — 'There is nothing given, nothing offered, nothing sacrificed. There is no fruit or result of good or bad actions. There is no this world, no next world, no mother, no father, no spontaneously reborn beings; no brahmans or contemplatives who, faring rightly and practicing rightly, proclaim this world and the next after having directly known and realized it for themselves' — it can be expected that, shunning these three skillful activities — good bodily conduct, good verbal conduct, good mental conduct — they will adopt & practice these three unskillful activities: bad bodily conduct, bad verbal conduct, bad mental conduct. Why is that? Because those venerable contemplatives & brahmans do not see, in unskillful activities, the drawbacks, the degradation, and the defilement; nor in skillful activities the rewards of renunciation, resembling cleansing...

With regard to this, an observant person considers thus: 'If there is no next world, then — with the breakup of the body, after death — this venerable person has made himself safe. But if there is the next world, then this venerable person — on the breakup of the body, after death — will reappear in a plane of deprivation, a bad destination, a lower realm, hell. Even if we didn't speak of the next world, and there weren't the true statement of those venerable contemplatives & brahmans, this venerable person is still criticized in the here-&-now by the observant as a person of bad habits & wrong view: one who holds to a doctrine of non-existence.' If there really is a next world, then this venerable person has made a bad throw twice: in that he is criticized by the observant here-&-now, and in that — with the breakup of the body, after death — he will reappear in a plane of deprivation, a bad destination, a lower realm, hell. Thus this safe-bet teaching, when poorly grasped & poorly adopted by him, covers (only) one side, and leaves behind the possibility of the skillful.

>>7276058

>wrong

Your premise is stupid. Hedonistic Objectivism is a stance based on feelings. "I want to feel good, therefore my pursuit of pleasure will be my priority." Therefore the only counter-logic would in turn be based on feelings. These feelings being that Hedonistic Objectivism is fucking dumb and destructive, and I'd rather uphold creative, uniting energies than destructive, divisive ones. That's it.

>>7278423
That would make you a hedonistic objectivist.

If you can live a so called "hedonistic" life (whatever that means) and be fulfilled then there is nothing wrong with that, providing you aren't harming others.
However most people tend to get to a point where purely hedonistic pleasures don't fulfill them on a deeper level. At this point they usually seek something more "meaningful". All this means is that for most people a life of hedonism isn't fulfilling enough as it is. There is great pleasure and fulfillment to be had from helping other humans. Ultimately you just gotta do what you gotta do tho fam

>>7278443

no, it would make me a moral relativist who rejects the notion that we should "worry about no one else or their struggles and solely focus on our own lives" because that is retarded

>>7278510
Those are some hot opinions you have there. As a moral relativist, you don't have any objective grounding to dismiss his lifestyle like that.

>>7278535

>objective grounding

What a load of bullshit. That's where the entire discussion falls short. I FEEL that Hedonistic Objectivism is retarded end destructive, in the same way that a Hedonistic Objectivist FEELS like he is justified in shoving his dick into whomever he pleases without regard for the consequences. From my perspective there is nothing logical or objective about such a stance and I reject it outright. Your so called "objectivism" is based on an solipsistic interpretation of reality, a completely subjective philosophy dependent on qualia. There's nothing objective or logical about it, and there's no need to use "logic" to try and "prove" why it's a bunch of shit. Hedonistic Objectivism is a cult of the self - enjoy being a brainless cultist.

>>7278558
It's fine that you have those feelings, but your philosophy is really no different than his, especially since you feel like you don't need to use logic here.

>>7276584
Elliot?

Seriously though, this image reeks of mountain dew and bullied-in-highschool-flavored doritos.

I wonder who are the fucking losers who make those images.

>>7278588

I'm not sure how many times I have to say this before you get it. If you're expecting a logical refutation of Hedonistic Objectivism, you aren't going to get one, since you're retarded enough to think that there exists an inalienable moral code that objectively outlaws a person's ability to be an asshole. Hedonistic Objectivism is based on feelings, and any counterarguments will be based in the same. What you're asking for is impossible, the same way that it is "impossible" to definitively prove or disprove the existence of god, and so I borrow the atheistic maxim, slightly modified - anything that can be asserted without logic can be dismissed without logic.

The difference between my philosophy and his is that I reject his philosophy and think it is very stupid and selfish. If you can't understand that then you are just dumb, and I'm sorry.

>>7277195
thats depp brah to be tbqh

>>7278614
Sure there are. There are lots of theories of that sort. If you can't argue for an objective basis to base your morality on, then your posts are really just a bunch of hot air. You are getting mad at someone for not sharing your subjective opinions. I'm sure OP thinks your philosophy is stupid too. That's not a meaningful difference.

Hedonism:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FUk5bUQNj00
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6oYUjm9QDj8
Discipline:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o1dBg__wsuo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kcnKR34kq_0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_F7ZBqptugI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IJ2NhH1E_uA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_HgWbo5g6g0

>>7278670

You're still stuck on "difference" and "sameness." The argument against Hedonistic Objectivism is that it's fucking stupid and destructive. You can find many ways to say this in more words >>7278481 >>7277446 >>7277195 >>7277046 >>7276685 and so on, but that's what it boils down to. It's STUPID. I don't care if OP doesn't share my opinions, that doesn't make me a Hedonistic Objectivist because the fact is that I'm not looking out solely for my own interests. The philosophy in OP is about rejecting others and only doing things out of self-interest. You're fumbling for an "objective basis" where there is none, and you're being disingenuous by claiming that there is some world where what I believe is at all related to what OP espouses. I'm getting mad because your logical paradigm is based on "hot air" and yet you're convinced that arguments - even ones based ENTIRELY in subjective thought - need to conform to your personal idea of "objectivity" in order to be valid. I don't care about the "right or wrongness" that you're obsessed with, I simply think that Hedonistic Objectivism is retarded.

>>7278691
There's a naturalistic fallacy in one of the posts, and the first post you quoted says hedonistic objectivism is fine if it fulfills your desire for deeper meaning. A lot of philosophers would disagree about there being no objective basis, but since you think there is none, your indignation can hardly be said to be more logical than OP's hedonistic objectivism.

Perhaps you think you are more "moral" than OP, but that is ultimately just your subjective opinion on the matter if you have nothing but hot air to back it up.

>>7278737

I didn't say I agreed with all the posts I quoted, just that there are many ways to argue against it. Ultimately they are all "hot air" that could be expressed by simply saying that the person in question is not thrilled by Hedonistic Objectivism.

I'm not indignant about Hedonistic Objectivism, I'm indignant about YOU. The basic fact is that I think Hedonistic Objectivism is stupid. There is no moral weight one way or the other. And yet you can't stop prancing around the subject and hiding behind a false sense of moral certitude, as if there is an arbiter of judgment to which we are supposed to conform. I'm not mad about OP, I've already rejected his philosophy - I'm mad about your inability to separate objectivity and subjectivity, and your insistence on reducing all philosophies to zero sum because in your mind any philosophy that "opposes" a nihilistic philosophy (which is what Hedonistic Objectivism fundamentally is) is itself a nihilistic philosophy. Through mental gymnastics you've conflated a positivist, inclusive worldview with a negative, exclusionary one, something so ass-backwards I would've never thought it possible unless I was on /lit/, where someone can be so blinded by the concept of "objectivity" that they're too paralyzed to have definitive opinions of their own

>>7278768
You don't know whether I believe in an objective morality. I haven't taken a position on the issue ITT, I've just said that you're irrational for getting this upset when you don't believe in one. I don't believe you when you say you're not mad at OP. Your first post clearly implied that you are bothered by hedonistic objectivism and every post after that only reinforces my point.

>>7278799

Of course Hedonistic Objectivism bothers me, why else would I call it stupid and reject it? It doesn't matter to me if OP practices it - that's his choice - but my argument against it is that it's fucking dumb, as I've said repeatedly. You can't get any simpler and more straightforward than that, and no amount of intellectualization and navel-gazing is going to change the fact that you either support Hedonistic Objectivism or you don't. Once again, it's not a moral argument, it's a subjective one, a subjective stance against a subjective stance. No one emerges as the "victor" or the "logically justified."

At least finally you are using more personal language and stating your opinion on the matter. If you don't believe me then that's fine, at least you are being honest as opposed to supplanting your own thoughts and opinions with philosophical spooks.

It is obvious, of course, that my position is "irrational", something I identified from the very beginning when I argued that Hedonistic Objectivism is itself inherently "irrational" and therefore can only be argued against using "irrational" means. There is no logical, rational argument in support of Hedonisitic Objectivism, and so it is rather pedantic to point out that arguments against it are equally illogical and irrational. That is simply a matter of course when we are dealing with "hot air."

>>7278827
My personal beliefs on this issue are irrelevant. I don't know why you want to know them so badly. My guess is that you're prepping for an adhominem. Putting that aside, you can make rational arguments against irrational ideas by pointing out inconsistencies. But you haven't done that, you just assumed OP is stupid based on your belief in moral relativity. The irony is that your personal philosophy doesn't provide an objective basis on which to justify the indignation you displayed here.

>>7278897

The only irony here is your apparent inability to participate in arguments without resorting to superficial "gotcha" tactics. Is "OP" stupid? Who gives a shit? Hedonistic Objectivism is stupid, that is and always has been what I've said and emphasized throughout this discussion. You want inconsistencies?

>Why should we worry about any one else or their struggles and not solely focus on our own lives?

The Hedonistic Objectivist believes that ignoring that happiness of others will lead to greater personal happiness. There is no logical basis for this claim, and in fact for many the opposite could very well be the outcome.

>We only are alive once and don't have to live with any repercussions when we die.

This is a fallacy based on a materialist apprehension of reality. An incomplete materialist apprehension at that, as the claim is predicated by "scientific thought" but actually is supported by no evidence whatsoever other than feelings.

I don't want to know your opinions just to throw ad hominems at you, I want to know what your opinions are so we can actually talk about the subject and not fight pointlessly over spooks.

>>7278931
Those aren't inconsistencies that you're pointing out. Your first objection isn't valid at all. You claim that there is no logical basis without explaining why. We could apply this methodology to your own beliefs and conclude that they're all false. I think it's likely that a good deal of your beliefs are false, but this isn't a valid way to demonstrate that. You can't defend your second objection as an atheist.

On the other hand, I point out actual inconsistencies in your positions. You really don't have any basis in your moral relativity to reject OP's ideas in the way you do. You either haven't thought your positions out to their logical conclusions or you don't understand them.

My beliefs aren't relevant to this. We are talking about the subject right now.

>>7276074

Because the invisible hand only applies to free market economies. In morality, your selfishness affects others negatively.

If we behaved like economists wanted us to behave, aka the homo economicus theorem, then yes OP, you would see nonchalant, entirely rational hedonism in individuals and our societies would be.... shit.

The central tenet of morality throughout the 19th and 20th century was that Millian economic model, but that's changed, and as others ITT have pointed out:

Look, I could go into to the nuance and detail or boil it down to this: humans are innately caring, groupish beings. There's a reason that when a coworker offers to cover your shift you say "I owe you thank you so much" and emphasize your thankfulness with a feeling of being indebted in lieu of acting like homo economicus, who would gladly walk out of the establishment with a shit eating grin ready to take a nice day off.

So, as others have said, our societies aren't solely hedonistic because we're not all sociopathic. And, as it turns out, short-lived hedonostic pleasures do not make us happy. That is illusory; what makes us happy is the relationships we have the people. This has been proven time again.

So indulge your hedonism, but be mindful of those close to you when you do and especially don't abandon them or give them reason to ostracize you.

>>7278931
>scientific thought
>supported by no evidence whatsoever other than feelings
philosophers, everyone.

This is why no one takes you seriously

>>7278985
>If we behaved like economists wanted us to behave, aka the homo economicus theorem

When economists talk about rational expectations they mean the market, a collection of people, not individual people.

>>7278982

There's no logical basis for the first claim because it is drawn out of "hot air." You would see that if you weren't a pedantic moron, and instead you would willfully blind yourself to the irrational nature of OP's philosophy because I can't supply you the evidence that is clearly in absence. You still haven't provided a logical, rational support FOR that claim, which you can't, and you know it, but you feel like being a contrarian asshole.

If you're too scared to share your own personal beliefs about the subject under discussion, you're a fucking coward and it's pointless to talk to you. Our argument is so far removed from OP's question because you're much more interested in fellating yourself every time you post.

The second claim is not drawn out of atheism, nor did I ever claim to be an atheist, rather I used their maxim to dismiss OP's philosophy. Perhaps if I had used the Latin "quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur" you would not have been so quick to dismiss the second claim like the idiot you're trying so hard to be.

Talk about the fucking subject and how you feel about it or don't respond

>>7279014

But acquired the unfortunate disposition of being adopted by ethicists

>>7279005

Impressive that in one post you've managed to be even dumber than >>7278982. OP's premise is appropriating scientific thought and misusing it to justify an irrational, subjective philosophy, something you'd THINK you'd be opposed to if you were an actual scientist, but you'd rather focus on one part of a sentence removed from its context instead of thinking critically about what is being said.

That's why no one takes YOU seriously.

>>7279027
sure thing buddy. keep beleiving in reincarnation bro.

>>7279031

You're never going to get smarter if all you do is regurgitate tired superficial nonsense whenever someone challenges you. Your reading comprehension is also poor, something that doesn't surprise me considering that we are on /lit/.

>>7279022
You're just repeating yourself without providing any justification. It's not immediately obvious to me why OP is wrong (it's especially not obvious under a moral relativist framework like you espouse) and you are bad at arguing against his position. I'm don't know if you've realized this, but 1) I'm not OP 2) we've been talking about the "subject" this entire time. My opinions are literally irrelevant here. We can just agree to disagree and conclude that you're wrong.

>>7276058
Because that's Hedonistic Egoism
Objectivism is just a poor application of scientism and modern libertarianism.

>>7276074
rational hedonism is a widely accepted and modern philosophy of rational pleasure seeking.
unabated hedonism is widely disregarded because of the paradox of pleasure, which is the tenancy for the direct and full pursuit of pleasure to result in less pleasure and often pain.

>>7279027
But anon, 4chan is the land of strawmen!

>>7279047

That is the most superficial crap I've read today. You might've bamboozled your high school teachers but you literally cannot handle discussions requiring both critical thought and the courage to express your belief. You are also diverting and not addressing my request for a rational support of OP's argument because you don't know how to respond anymore. Of course I know you're not OP, and no, no matter how hard you smugly try to pretend like your posts are about Hedonistic Objectivism, all of them have been spent talking in circles because that's all your interested in. Conclude whatever you want, you stopped intellectually progressing in your teens and clearly you aren't interested in learning anything anymore. That's why /lit/ is so appealing to you, isn't it?

It's fun to live with something to work towards. People pursuing naive self-interest will, more like than not, have a nagging feeling of superfluousness. Shouldn't I be doing something with my life?

So, the common human obsession with impacting on the world. If we are all self interested and think in game-theoric terms, then this impact should try to be net-positive towards each other as well as ourself.

But what is net positive?

Congratulations, you are now political. Think about how dumb your previous position was, then get to work.

>>7277086
>make me feel good now
>now
Your use of that strawman illustrates why you're an idiot and why I left the thread after I posted

>>7278985
This isn't applicable to society
The true [whatever phrase op uses] would ultimately encourage selflessness while practicing selfishness

Anyway these are loaded terms. The true [op phrase] would also be acting in such a way that people adore and enjoy serving him

Existence proves that this the ideal way to live. And trust me when I say that the end result is an altruism

>>7279063
Your objections to hedonistic objectivism are invalid and your views on morality are incoherent. This is demonstrated in your cognitive dissonance with moral outrage and moral relativism and your failure to give a meaningful answer to OP's question that isn't circular in nature. It's not my job to justify hedonistic objectivism since it's not even my position. This isn't even my thread. I'm just saying your arguments against it are bad, which they are. Even if you happen to be right, you're right for the wrong reasons, so you're still wrong. I'm not going to comment on your silly armchair psychology.

>>7279105

And you're wrong in your assessment of the quality of my arguments, and still too cowardly to even venture a comment about the actual subject of the thread, since you were so thoroughly BTFO in your first attempt at contribution >>7278443, where you conflated my anti-Hedonistic Objectivist stance with Hedonistic Objectivism, a completely contradictory assessment that occurred before I even mentioned moral relativism. You also don't seem to understand moral relativism particularly well, and it's telling that you've seized on that particular point rather than addressing literally everything we've talked about, because that would be too challenging, wouldn't it? You'd rather pedantically point out some perceived (and erroneous) flaw in my stance than actually address the subject at hand, which has been and always will be Hedonistic Objectivism.

>>7279125
Your first post was so nonsensical that honestly almost anything could have followed from it. "It's stupid because I FEEL it's stupid" isn't a valid objection to anything. You later refined this quality thought to "it's wrong because it's wrong", which still isn't a valid objection. If you don't understand why this is flawed reasoning and think I'm being pedantic by pointing it out, I doubt *you* understand moral relativism or anything else in ethics. I'm not the one resorting to pop psychology out of desperation to win some internet debate.

>>7279144
"Its stupid because I feel it is stupid" is a perfectly valid objection to a philosophy whose adherents believe "I am justified to behave this way because I feel that I am justified to behave this way." Hedonistic Objectivism is fundamentally irrational, a premise that you've pointedly refused to address. Your posts are long-winded recapitulations of a maxim not unlike my own: "I feel that Hedonistic Objectivism can be defended rationally because I don't think it's irrational" a claim for which you have no proof and that firmly derives from "hot air" as you were fond of saying earlier. If you have a logical argument for why you think Hedonistic Objectivism can withstand rational scrutiny, stop wasting our time and present it. I know that you don't have one, which is why you constantly defer and resort to "You're wrong because I feel like you're wrong" out of desperation to win some internet debate.

>>7276174
Until it is scientifically proven, then yes, we live only one life.

>>7279160
toasted

>>7279160
You would really benefit from taking a formal logic course. That is not a valid objection because it doesn't say why OP is wrong. I'm doing you a favor just by calling it an objection. You are talking about your feelings. If everything is going to fly like that, then this discourse is meaningless. OP likely doesn't care about your feelings and I doubt your post convinced him of anything. Irrational ideas are rebutted with rational arguments all the time. It's fine if you can't think of any good objections on your own, but you're not humble enough to admit it.

>>7279160
Given that man is a singular perspective among many, ultimately (given finite quality of resources) competing perspectives, and given that value is inherently relative - his perspective is the most important to him
All he can know is his perspective, and any other knowledge is known through that perspective. What is good for [him] (his perspective being all that he is and all that he knows) is good for him, what is bad for him is bad
Pleasure is the greatest good; this is a fact. Through whatever perversion he may gain pleasure through some pain, but because of the reality as stated above, any pleasure taken from anything not directly to the benefit of his well being is just that; a perversion, and logically false
Since pleasure is the greatest goal one can aspire to, then power is as well; the power to achieve maximal pleasure. And knowledge; the knowledge needed to achieve maximal power.
This is hedonistic objectivism

>>7279189

You're not doing anything helpful, actually. I don't care if OP is convinced, that's not the point and never was. From the very beginning I said that these were my feelings about the matter, so it comes as no surprise when you point that out. Our entire discussion has been about our feelings, you've just preferred to cloak yours and it's been ridiculously difficult to actually get you to share your thoughts.

Would a Branch Davidian ever respond to your "rational" arguments? No. Would a true Hedonistic Objectivist? Of course not. He's not going to listen to a word you say, because the Hedonistic Objectivist inherently rejects all beliefs that are not his own.

Fat lot of good your formal logic and rational arguments will do when the Hedonistic Objectivist steals all your stuff, shits all over you, and never thinks twice because he felt entirely justified in doing so.

And no, just because I have an opinion, doesn't make discourse meaningless. This discourse is meaningless because you refuse to actually weigh in on the topic and are more concerned with pretending like your personal feelings are formal logic. If you'd just share your opinion regarding Hedonistic Objectivism - even if that opinion happens in your eyes to be malformed or "imperfect" - perhaps we could actually have an interesting discussion.

>Irrational ideas are rebutted with rational arguments all the time.

This is only true when the irrational idea can be refuted with evidence, such as "Humans cannot fly" being rebutted when someone made a fucking airplane.

>>7279230
>Pleasure is the greatest good; this is a fact.

No, that is not a fact, that is your personal feeling regarding the matter.

>>7279238
I'm pointing out that your feelings don't constitute a valid objection to the OP. This entire discussion has really been about why your "arguments" are terrible. It is meaningless because you don't understand the basic rules of logic, so I might as well be having this conversation with a pigeon. There are valid critiques of Rand's ideas. Yours isn't one of them.

>>7279254

And I'm very confident that upon scrutiny, all of those critiques boil down to the author simply not liking Hedonistic Objectivism, thinking that it is stupid, and using many words and many pages to say what I've said much more concisely in a single sentence.

I'm well aware of the rules of logic, enough to know that the central refutation of Hedonistic Objectivism is simply: "that's fucking retarded." I'd rather not waste my time writing an essay about it, I'd much rather waste my time arguing with pompous pedants on /lit/. The question is why you would choose to waste time fighting with me when you know that I'm fundamentally correct and have been from the beginning. Could it be - "you're critique is invalid because I feel it's invalid"? Oh yes, I think so. In fact, you even said as much, and I quote: "Even if you happen to be right, you're right for the wrong reasons, so you're still wrong."

And still - still! You have not offered any argument for how Hedonistic Objectivism can withstand rational scrutiny.

I have just fapped

>>7279288
I'm sure they would appear that way to you since you like to inject feelings into everything. That quote means that even if you happen to be correct, you would be arriving at correct conclusion through bad reasoning. I've already explained numerous times why your reasoning is bad, but you don't want to understand. I don't know how any sane person could take that to mean "I FEEL that you're wrong" when I haven't even talked about what I feel once. I know you have the irresistible urge to try to turn things on me, but this just makes you look dumb.

>>7279333

I'm turning things on you because I'd like you to reply with an original thought (yes, your feelings) instead of regurgitating whatever you learned in your formal logic course.

>>7276696

>>7278613
sure, tell us what is false in this image.

>>7279372
It operates on biased, pathological presuppositions.

>>7279385

sounds like feelings

>>7279242
What's the best feeling one can feel - better yet, what is inherent in anything that feels good for anyone?

Shut up

>>7279472

I get no pleasure out of being here, but the INTENSE intellectual rigor of /lit/ teaches me things that I wouldn't learn elsewhere

No u

>>7279372
I'm good looking, not confident, not always in the mood and I still get laid and honestly tend to have women pay for me

I'm a guy btw

>>7279479
Do you get pleasure out of learning things you wouldn't elsewhere

>if no, then ask yourself why you do it and keep asking why until you answer 'because I enjoy it'

>>7279489

actually no, it's a survival mechanism

>ask yourself "why do I enjoy this" instead

>>7276685
I really like the direction you are heading. Can you point me to some book or resource to explor the points you are making in more depth?

>>7279691
He confuses icons and idols. because secular liberal institutions have idols instead of icons. idols are empty, they just exists and are praised by the populace. Icons convey a message to the populace, whose message is necessarily beyond the daily hedonistic life. Icons deliver a message about The control of the desires, which is the great systematic result of the good life since the greeks. Icons are praised through rituals. But the liberal despise rituals, at least those who are not about praising the human rights..

the liberals have no pictural representation to turn into proselytism to assert liberalism, at least in the classical sense, whose practice is nothing but
-creation of concepts/models/theories in the universities which is the fantasy of the rationalist [or worse, the one of the libertarian against the licence]
-leisure for the populace [which is the fantasy of the liberal]

Most people do not have the means to assert their hedonism. And those who do must face their lassitude leading them to create the notion of merit. Since the merit is a phony concept, they fail miserably and the hedonist romanticizes the spleen of the hedonistic life style. The populace which lives vicariously since, being the populace, it does not have the means for leisure, nor for the rationalism is left


this is why the occidental humanism is lost in individualist consumerism on the verge of nihilism for the most fallacious people.

The great fantasy of the rationalist-liberal is to merge the screen of the rationalist which delivers numbers, therefore truths connected to reality, with the screen of the liberal which delivers entertainment. The fantasy is to learn while you have fun. This would stop the masses to live vicariously. Of course, it will fail miserably and the populace will remain the populace. The comfort of living vicariously is far too great to actually work hard in order to obtain the means to stop living the hedonistic life style vicariously.

>have the economic and social means to live a life of pure hedonism
>the concept doesn't appeal to me
>have tried it and I just feel like shit after I smoke a joint or have a threesome
>I don't even think social conditioning has had a lot to do with it since I pretty much could do as I pleased for as long as I can remember

As a layman Id say that the current #YOLO attitude is just reactionary crap from kids that were brought up by people that tried to keep a rebellious #YOLO mentality of their own(boomers) due to being raised by stern and strict parents(Silent gen), but later found out that life doesnt work that way so they gave mixed signals to their children regarding what their behavior and social responsibilities should be (>dont be a slut stacy >its ok to experiment and have fun, just take care of yourself stacy), or simply didn't know how to raise them so they limited their parental responsibilities to providing food and shelter for them.

Its really sad to see all the hipsters, tumblerinas, /pol/fags, preppy kids etc since they really wanna be on their high horses but cant even get there, they live a life of constant cognitive dissonance on which they try way too hard to appeal to their peers while at the same time time trying to be way too unique and special, the antithesis to these guys is the modern day synic who doesnt really has very strong beliefs, the irony is that his attitude towards life is almost indistinguishible from the one taken by his non synic contemporaries the only difference is that the hipster/neo nazi/otherkin etc is frustrated cause the modern world forces him to become cynic as a way to survive while the cynic is frustrated cause deep down he does want to have strong beliefs but is aware that this will not get him anywhere and regardless of how strong his hypothetical beliefs are they wont go past buying some ridiculously large glasses or circlejerking about the "day of the rope" on /pol/.

>>7279769

>The great fantasy of the rationalist-liberal is to merge the screen of the rationalist which delivers numbers, therefore truths connected to reality, with the screen of the liberal which delivers entertainment. The fantasy is to learn while you have fun. This would stop the masses to live vicariously. Of course, it will fail miserably and the populace will remain the populace. The comfort of living vicariously is far too great to actually work hard in order to obtain the means to stop living the hedonistic life style vicariously.

fiercely pure ideology

>124 replies
>would have a 1/4 of that if you didn't use a picture of a girl

This site is really as disgusting and pathetic as the rest of Millennials think it is.

Because it all falls apart when you ask the question "why are human capable of feeling pleasure?"

>>7279874
Honestly, if that is what puts you off about this site, you need to reconsider your value system.

>taking hedonism seriously
>still not realizing pseudo-intellectualism
>still not remembering that life is but a passage
>still not remembering that only deeds are the marks left of your time here
>still not remembering what your purpose is
>still not remembering the universal value of belief throughout all time
>still not remembering Allah

Indeed the human is forgetful.

>>7279874
It's filled with intelligent comments. Go back to tumblr you swine

>>7276702
I've watched this probably five times now

WHAT DO THE PICTURES MEAN

>>7279163
You know it's bullshit and i know it's bullshit. Let's say there is afterlife but we can't prove it, it doesn't change the fact that afterlife exist. So with or without proof you can't change the reality.

>>7276058
>>7276074
Modern psychology tells us that unless you're a rather special kind of person (Dark Triad traits and all that) you'll feel like shit when you have your midlife crisis and the only thing that makes it better is to help others

>>7279163
The scientific position is to stay agnostic of the fact.

>>7279900
Who's this Allah bloke you speak of? How am I supposed to worship a God that I've never heard of or heard from? And this is just one example of where theism falls down; no one worships a God/s they haven't heard of.

Well when you put it that way, there's no reason not to worry about anyone else, if that's what pleases you.

Oh shit I just went Full Stirner.

>>7280141
What about theory that everyone worship the same God with just diffrent concepts and ideas of him.

>>7276058
>We only are alive once ...
Citation needed.
> ...and don't have to live with any repercussions when we die.
Citation needed, motherfucker.

>>7279163
>Until it is scientifically proven
The vast majority of truths cannot be scientifically proven. Science is a tool of very limited scope; this is by design. A tool with very limited applicability can be more powerful in the domain where it's applicable.

>>7276058
because if everyone thinks like you, everyone would suffer. imagine 10 guys stuck in an island. and each of them were selfish. after 1 month, 9 would be dead.

but if they don't think like you, after 1 month they'd all still be alive.

>>7276058
the fact you will live life to the fullest wont matter. no one will care about it in 100 years. not even you because you will be dead by then.

but


i think it will be really lame if as species wont be able to colonize the universe before it is too late. it will be really lame if all we do is sex drugs eat and die off in a million years.

i think progress in science and technology is the most important thing we should care about. this sounds fedora as fuck but that is the only thing i care for in life.

>>7280282
Give me one reason why should i care about something that will happen after my death. I think progress is just side effect of our actions.
Anyway why people care so much about humanity? Why would you care if humanity will be able to colonize the universe or if will be still alive after your death?

humans are more socially intelligent than they are logically intelligent.
That is, we are able to remember 100s of people in great detail, and given that knowledge most of us are able to determine where we fit in with society, how to get support from other people when we need it, how to have fun with other people, how to get laid, how to do anything. Very little of life is pure logic without humanity.
Even hedonism usually relies on other people. For most people, being able to understand others requires the imagination to see what it would be like to be in their shoes, and from there understand what motivations they have, and then when you understand that you are able to see what you can give them to get what you want from them.
A side effect of this process, in normal functioning people, is compassion. it's even selfish, "I don't want this person to die, because he laughs at my jokes and make me feel funny and useful", rather than "I don't want this person to die because he would not want to die".

Unless you are a psychopath, even if you aspire to pure hedonism without compassion, you would not be able to achieve it. Instead I predict you will exercise cruelty at the first opportunity, then regret it as your friends leave. That is, if you are even brave enough to follow through.

>>7280296
>Why would you care if humanity will be able to colonize the universe
This thinking is necessary for you to be able to live happy at present.

If everyone doesn't care about the future generations, they will live irresponsibly, like not develop cure for all sorts of diseases, not practice proper waste management. Now if you get sick, you're fucked, there would be no doctors because they didn't think about becoming a doctor because #YOLO. No engineers to build your houses. No cars, no trains, no internet, no cellphones.

>>7280342
Yes this is thinking of man who cares about others but i don't care about other lives, NOW i'm enjoying life and i don't care about any kind of progress. Really there is no logical reason to start thinking like you, it's just don't matter in my lifetime.

>>7280351
logically you might have a point, but most people are happier believing that they are doing good.
Even if they are not acting in the best interests of humanity, they are still happy because they believe they are providing for their family.

I don't really believe you, I think you are making a point to not care about progress, because you think it gives you some logical superiority or justification for your actions.
If you really didn't care about progress, you wouldn't care if it happened or not, and you wouldn't even think to argue about it.
I suspect you feel guilty about something, and you resent other people for making you feel that.

>>7280351
You get to enjoy living like that right now because of the people who cared about the earth, humans, and the future.

You get to go on 4chan and create a thread and ask "why should i care" because of the people who created computers and the internet.

>>7280375
Arguing is the pleasure in itself, there is really no deep philosophy behind it.

>>7280381
Someone cleaning a toilet everyday in my job but i still dont think or care about him, i was borned, computers were developed it's fine for me and i will use them. But i don't care if someone somwhere will invent cancer cure or flying cars, when it happens i will enjoy it.

Yes i'm kind of hypocrite, i'm enjoying others work but i don't like to please others.

>>7280396
Let me guess, you're a female?

>>7280396
You're free to live your life as you please. You're just one person. All I'm saying is, if everyone lived like you, it will be a disaster for everyone. Agree?

>>7280404
No

>>7280412
Homosexual?

>>7280419
Heterosexual

It doesn't account for realism. It's the right wing conservativeness of literary perspectives. Moral realism and concious reflection RULES!

>>7276058
I agree with you op, focus on yourself and yourself only, why waste time, resources and emotions on people who will never pay you back for it? Why is this considered a bad attitude? Survival of the fittest, may as well ensure you yourself is the fittest

>>7280504
>implying survival is an enticing prospect

read more lol. best thing you can do for yourself is jump off a bridge, but everyone is too self-destructive to kill themselves.

>>7280514
I dont know about you but i actually like life, anon. Each to their own i guess.

>>7280517
>the point
>ur brain

top kek tbh

>>7280519
Im sorry your want to jump of a bridge makes you more intelligent. Okay youre suicidal, you MUST be such a smart man, please teach me your ways. No seriously educate me, whats your point. Im up for some amusement before bed.

>>7280527
>pls spoonfeed me /lit/ i'm not bright enough to understand simple concepts huehuehe

haha nice 1 reddit

>>7280532
So instead of teaching me what you think you may know better than me, you condescend me and refuse to teach, instead calling me stupid for wanting to learn? You do know thats the trait of an insecure and unintelligent person right? My willingness to learn has already proven im smarter than you.

>>7280541
im literally rofling atm

>>7280546
Ok, im going to bed now. Ive learned about as much from you as i would expect to learn from an idiot- nothing. Goodnight, god bless.

>>7280557
night reddit

>>7277164
define "the core"

>>7276584
my god thats a dumb .png

>>7276058
Witsd?