[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 14 KB, 300x202, photo-by-terry-richardson-pleasure-by-terry-richardson-300x202.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7424491 No.7424491 [Reply] [Original]

You have 1 minute to refute hedonism.

>> No.7424495

Nah, I have better things to do than gratify you.

>> No.7424496

your mom

>> No.7424507

All great men and women were made by suffering, not pleasure.

Also putting your faith in something as unstable and fleeting as pleasure pleasure is unwise

>> No.7424510

>>7424491
empathy.

>> No.7424518

>>7424507
>implying greatness isn't an arbitrary phrase without inherent value whatsoever

great post

>> No.7424524

>>7424510
Why do you think hedonism and empathy are somehow at odds? Having empathy just means that it pleases you to please others as well, which is an everyone wins type of thing and an argument in favour of hedonism if anything.

>> No.7424527

>>7424491
It's reddit tier.

>> No.7424529
File: 16 KB, 364x286, hedon.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7424529

>>7424524
when hedonism for me is the rape and destruction of all, and slathering myself in honeyed urine freshly squeezed from toddler virgin girls, then empathy is definitely at odds with hedonism.

>> No.7424569

>>7424529
You can still do all that and experience empathy. Jeffrey Dahmer wasn't a sociopath, he was just a wildly kinky fuck, and he felt extreme guilt for every person he killed.

>> No.7424584

>>7424495

crying/10

>>7424496
child/10

>>7424507
retard/10

>>7424510
retard/10

>> No.7424593

Boring.

>> No.7424612

Long term happiness > Short term gratification

>> No.7424618

>>7424612
never read an explicit articulation of hedonism /10

>>7424593
crying/10

>> No.7424620

>>7424507
>greatness

>implying this means anything

>> No.7424631

>>7424491
It's easy to build up a tolerance and/or get bored.

>> No.7424633

>>7424631
being bad at something is not a refutation of said thing/10

>> No.7424645

>>7424618
explicitly articulate hedonism then

>> No.7424652

There's no particular reason to equate pleasure with the good, and even if you're to accept that aesthetics = ethics there's nothing that makes aesthetic pleasure better than aesthetic pain.
>>7424645
>wanting to be spoonfed
Christ, if you can't even go in for the SEP then just kill yourself

>> No.7424681

https://youtu.be/KnHJR9auE3o

>> No.7424704

>>7424491
lassitude

>> No.7424717

>>7424645
why did you come into a thread about refuting hedonism and attempted to do so if you had no acquaintance with it at all/10

>> No.7424723

>>7424652
>>7424717
so will you define it or not

>> No.7424774

>>7424491
without restraint we will destroy ourselves. if that's not a good enough reason then you're hiding behind logic games instead of facing the responsibility of life and decency.

>> No.7424930

It can be self defeating, because knowing that pleasure is the object of all striving can weaken immersion in the striving.
Pleasure being good and pain being bad is mostly a useless tautology.

>> No.7424949

I find comfort in pain

>> No.7424959

since I've never had sex it would be ridiculous for me to espouse hedonism

>> No.7424969

>>7424774
ideology/10

ps: if you have no interest in philosophy dont post in philosophy threads

>>7424930
line 1 not thorough enough/10

line 2 utility isn't a real thing/10

>>7424949
that's still pleasure/10

>> No.7425007

>>7424969
ideology/10

you're a hack

>> No.7425022

>>7425007
still better than you/10

>>7424959
hypocrisy isn't bad i hadn't considered it but still pretty weak/10

>> No.7425024
File: 143 KB, 896x704, 1447134869066.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7425024

>> No.7425033

Hedonism is a life free of denial, which leads to excess. To fully support excess that could be considered hedonism, it requires large amounts of money to remain on good terms with the law. That means you either, in some way, control others as a method for making money to satisfy yourself, or you sayisfy yourself at the expense of others, raping and killing and stealing, becoming a wellspring of negative influence which pushes the world further and further away from a state of justice. Everything may be right with and in you, but it upsets balance in and with others. In essence, no matter how you choose to do it, hedonism compels you to injustice

>> No.7425038

Morality

>> No.7425039

>>7425038
Dank one, homeboy

>> No.7425043

>>7425033
>To fully support excess that could be considered hedonism, it requires large amounts of money to remain on good terms with the law

stopped reading right there/10

only people who know what they're talking about need apply

>>7425024
sneaky aquinas/10

it's a sad day on /lit/ when a shitty meme has more valid points than anon

>> No.7425045
File: 148 KB, 200x237, 1362336098251.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7425045

>>7424491
>refute hedonism
Hedonism is the default state of consciousness. Ideology, morality and anything else are mere spooks. The burden of proof is on the opposition to the natural.

>> No.7425047

>>7425045
agreement isn't refuting/10

>> No.7425067

>>7424959
heh, clever

>> No.7425073

>>7425045
The default state is discomfort

>> No.7425076

>>7424969
i have an interest in the philosophy of decency.

it absolutely is ideology, what's wrong with that? it's better than being a dick.

>> No.7425078
File: 1007 KB, 885x1075, maxknatte.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7425078

>>7425045
using max to justify your hedonism is weak af

>> No.7425089

>>7425076
thinking you're explicitly acceptant of ideology/10

underage b&

>> No.7425129

>>7424495

oh snap

>> No.7425175

>>7425073
The default state is discomfort which we are compelled to resolve. That is indulgence in hedonism. Anything else is spooky.

>>7425078
Stirner's conclusion is the very definition of hedonism. The pursuit of the will above all else.

>> No.7425183

>>7424569
.................................................................

>> No.7425202

>>7425183
yeah, he doesnt take into account the possibility that empathy doesnt apply if i don't take pleasure in empathy, and is thus at odds. n' shit.

>> No.7425308

The only way to be happy is to love

>> No.7425469

>>7424529
No it's not, since as a psychopath you have no empathy to be at odds with it.

>> No.7425485

>>7425469
i'm saying that to a philosophy where empathy is important, it would be at odds with hedonism of that brand. besides, all i'm saying is that any way of life devoid of empathy is worthless drek.

>> No.7425532
File: 9 KB, 201x285, 12065883_1632133117055118_7271315371206561149_n.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7425532

The pursuit of happiness cannot be refuted through pure reason. This can only be attempted in conjunction with observation of the consequences of hedonism in practice can we refute hedonism as a philosophy that leads to nowhere and is both destructive to the community as well as to the individual.

>> No.7425548

>>7425485
For most people having empathy and being a hedonist go together great though. So the existence of empathy in no way refutes hedonism.

>> No.7425561

>>7425308
$ > <3

>> No.7425568

>>7425561
>this is what poor people actually believe

swallowed capitalist virtues hook line and sinker didntcha buddy

>> No.7425779
File: 32 KB, 207x252, 1448049389873.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7425779

>Hedonist pleb
Nihilism is where It's at.
Enjoy your constant hunt for dopamine, while I feel fulfilled by anything.

On a more serious note, pleasure-seeking is a part of our nature but you can break free from it, It's an odd state of being. It's a indescribable freedom, where literally anything is 'the best option'.

>> No.7425827

>>7425779
>he thinks hedonism equates pleasure with dopamine
jesus, why do people even bother posting if they have no idea what they're arguing

>> No.7425868

>>7425779

So complete apathy is indescribable freedom?

And sorry, I am simply never going to believe you've transcended pleasure-seeking. Believing yourself to be literally Buddha is delusional to the point of ridiculousness.

>> No.7425895

>>7425827
>>7425868
Depends on if you think of actual hedonism or "Hedonism".
I'm not delusional enough to think I am some sort of demigod.
Actual hedonism: Yes, that is the way I pretty much live, although often in other types of pleasure. The problem is that I've talked with so many people labeling me as a nihilist at this point.

>> No.7425899

"[...]a so-called fundamental proposition or first principle of philosophy, even if it is true, is yet none the less false just because and in so far as it is merely a fundamental proposition, merely a first principle. It is for that reason easily refuted. The refutation consists in bringing out its defective character, and it is defective because it is merely the universal, merely a principle, the beginning. If the refutation is complete and thorough, it is derived and developed from the nature of the principle itself, and not accomplished by bringing in from elsewhere other counter assurances and chance fancies. It would be strictly the development of the principle, and thus the completion of its deficiency, were it not that it misunderstands its own purport by taking account solely of the negative aspect of what it seeks to do, and is not conscious of the positive character of its process and result. [...] It [this philosophical principle] may therefore be regarded as a refutation of what constitutes the basis of the system; but more correctly it should be looked at as a demonstration that the basis or principle of the system is in point of fact merely its beginning."

>> No.7425904

>>7425568
People who have sufficient financial cushioning from reality think this way.

In real life, money buys love.

>> No.7425924

>>7425904
>People who have sufficient financial cushioning from reality think this way.

they think that capitalism embedded itself in our value system such that it makes people think it's worth more than authentic rapport between humans while simultaneously making it effectively impossible? cool.

>In real life, money buys objects or services.

ftfy. don't say no one warned you, gatsby.

>> No.7425927

>>7425924
Gatsby is Disney schlock.

>> No.7425934

>>7425927
so that would make you disney schlock by extension. seems accurate.

>> No.7425940

The objectivity of a non-hedonist deity.

>> No.7425947

>>7425940
not even trying/10

>> No.7425965

>>7425947
Why would I try when it requires no effort to debunk your /b/tard ideology?

>> No.7425975

>>7425965
>why would i try

-anon, after trying and failing

>> No.7425980

Human beings are more than simple pleasure seeking animals. We are more because we have the capacity for reason, and therefore freedom. A human being cannot be content with simple pleasure if he is stripped of his freedom.

>> No.7425982

I feel guilty after I jerk off sometimes.

>> No.7425986

>>7425975
Except I succeeded.

>> No.7425994

>>7425982
not even current ideology/10

>>7425980
incoherent argument/10

begs the question

>> No.7426002

>>7425986
self-delusion is a valid form of refutation only if you're psychotic/10

>> No.7426005

>>7425994
Do you live on the west coast? Because I'm pretty confident I could get some sort of award for discovering a new strain of autism that causes a person to write "/10" at the end of every refutation for no apparent reason/

>> No.7426006

>>7425980
'reason' is just an instrument of your drives, m8. reason doesn't lead to anything in itself. tis not contrary to reason to prefer the destruction of the whole world to the scratching of my finger and so on

>> No.7426007

>>7426002
Projection isn't an argument.

>> No.7426015

>>7426005

if no one grades your work you will never know you're a pleb anon

>>7426007
>
>>7426002

>> No.7426020

>>7426015
abstract concept/ln(e)x10^1

>> No.7426031

>>7426020
rude

>> No.7426055

>>7424652
>>7424717
tfw no definitions

>> No.7426075
File: 3 KB, 93x125, 1448921212435s.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7426075

>>7426055
>expecting random anonymous posters to hold your hand and stroke your dick while they read SEP artciles, obscure utilitarians and minor greeks to you

>> No.7426078

the craving for existence and sensual experience is the source of suffering. but don't ask me, ask pretty much any thinker who has meditated on suffering

>> No.7426084

>>7426075
nigga just sum up what your idea of hedonism is in like a sentence or two you 'tismal assclown faggot

>> No.7426086
File: 582 KB, 1000x750, 0oQm9sz.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7426086

>>7424491
>hedonism
If you are mainly concerned with your own pleasures while being aware of the suffering of others you are wicked and weak.

>> No.7426088

>>7424527
Sure convinced me with those hit options

>> No.7426107

>>7426084
>nigga just sum up what your idea of hedonism is in like a sentence or two
>a sentence or two

fucking lmao

if you have no interest in philosophy there's plenty of threads you can go boy

>>7426078
if your point is that it's self-defeating, that's not enough.

>> No.7426114

>>7424495
Underrated post tbqhfam

>> No.7426117

>>7426078
being bad at something does not refute it/10

>>7426086
non sequitur post/10

>> No.7426132

>>7426117
kek, you think instant gratification being intrinsically unfulfilling is about skill and not a stone-cold fact about the nature of time and human physiology. go back WoW if you want people to help justify you marrying your waifu pillow, at least you won't have pretend you know any philosophy

>> No.7426134

>>7426117
You know exactly what I mean don't even try this shit

>> No.7426140

>>7424491
Satisfying my mammalian urges brings me no closer to the kingdom of God. Food and drink though, oh man...

>> No.7426154

There is nobody who is not a hedonist. Ascetics and Masochists just have pretentious names for their kind of pleasure.

>> No.7426157

>>7426132
>instant gratification

confirmed to not know what he's arguing against/10

also your p good at projecting, have you tried using yourself to show powerpoints?

>>7426134

i never said i didn't understand what you meant.

>>7426140

proper refutation but i doubt you realize why/10

>> No.7426160

>>7424491
pleasure isnt fulfilling, we are not animals and have higher goals. that or i could argue working to a goal is pleasurable simply for the reward. i dunno, this beer is getting me sloshed and i dont want to think about it too much

>> No.7426172

Pleasure has no inherent value

>> No.7426175

>>7426157
Because my spirit and flesh wage war against one another, my spirit craves to be enveloped by God's love, sensuality brings my spirit back into a carnal mind.

>> No.7426182

>>7426160
drunk/10

>>7426172
incoherent/10

begs the question

>>7426175
almost there. good enough. you pass. grats.

>> No.7426190

>>7426182
OP, would you mind giving your opinion on the subject?
This thread would be better as a conversation, instead of a test (imo).

>> No.7426195

>>7426182
Alright!

>> No.7426201

>>7426182
>begs the question
How?

>> No.7426202

Go to now, ye rich men, weep and howl for your miseries that shall come upon you.
Your riches are corrupted, and your garments are motheaten.
Your gold and silver is cankered; and the rust of them shall be a witness against you, and shall eat your flesh as it were fire. Ye have heaped treasure together for the last days.

>> No.7426209

Again, the kingdom of heaven is like unto treasure hid in a field; the which when a man hath found, he hideth, and for joy thereof goeth and selleth all that he hath, and buyeth that field.

>> No.7426225

>>7426202
fuck off, you're such a capitalist classkek you can't even understand that happiness has nothing to do with being rich

>> No.7426231

>>7426225
literally read what you quoted lmao

>> No.7426233

>>7426190
im not op, just making fun of people arguing against a naive 'lol heroin' understanding of hedonism instead of what it actually is, a subset of utilitarianism. the best objections came from the christians because they basically do a linguistic shuffle and agree with the hedonists but redefine 'pleasure'. other good objections were the people who tried to claim the hedonist principes were insufficient but didn' flesh it out enough.

if you wanna know more about this you can read Well-Being and Death by Bradley or Pleasure and the Good Life by Feldman, or if you want to know more about the shitty facsimile of hedonism most people were arguing about here, might as well read about some people who actually espoused it besides having some interesting skeptic ideas and read The Epistemology of the Cyrenaic School by idk who it was.

>> No.7426247

>>7426225
just sayin' =(

>> No.7426253

>>7425175
If the default state is discomfort and hedonism is the amelioration of the discomfort, then does this make suicide the ultimate hedonistic act?

>> No.7426254

>>7426088
>those hit options
What is this supposed to mean?

>> No.7426257
File: 10 KB, 160x324, images.duckduckgo.com.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7426257

But whoever does what is true comes to the light, so that it may become evident that his actions have God's approval.

>> No.7426272

>>7424491
Through repeated observation, every single human being can come to the conclusion that there is nothing in life that brings pleasure and/or joy without saturation and/or grief following afterwards.
In the same manner, one can observe how nothing truly beautiful and virtuous in life comes with ease, which is to say, not all difficult things have worth, but all things that have worth are difficult.

A little over 60 seconds because fuck you.

>> No.7426285

>>7426272
>another faggot thinking hedonism is nothing but instant gratification

baka

>> No.7426311

>>7426285
if i understand hedonism it is essentially saying the only thing worth living for is pleasure

>> No.7426322

>>7426311
If you were living 2500 years ago, sure. But you're a bit late for this thread.

>> No.7426357

>>7426322
i cannot see the concept being different to any extreme with respect to time

>> No.7426367

>>7426357
that's a product of your ignorance

>> No.7426372

>>7426367
perhaps you can illustrate this to me

>> No.7426378

>>7426372
>im not op, just making fun of people arguing against a naive 'lol heroin' understanding of hedonism instead of what it actually is, a subset of utilitarianism. the best objections came from the christians because they basically do a linguistic shuffle and agree with the hedonists but redefine 'pleasure'. other good objections were the people who tried to claim the hedonist principes were insufficient but didn' flesh it out enough.

>if you wanna know more about this you can read Well-Being and Death by Bradley or Pleasure and the Good Life by Feldman, or if you want to know more about the shitty facsimile of hedonism most people were arguing about here, might as well read about some people who actually espoused it besides having some interesting skeptic ideas and read The Epistemology of the Cyrenaic School by idk who it was.

>> No.7426392

>>7426253
oh shit

>> No.7426397

I think I will take my time, thank you

>> No.7426399

>>7426392
it doesn't, because even though displeasure is bad, no displeasure isn't good, it's neutral. and the potential for pleasure is of higher value than neutral cases, and even maybe pleasurable in itself. that poster is just confused.

>> No.7426414

>>7426399
Negative hedonism exists, lad.

>> No.7426418

>muh pleasure

>> No.7426420

>>7426414
yeah but it's not relevant to the topic at hand

>> No.7426423

>>7426272
>virtue

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f7QzxYAjgNc

>> No.7426428

>>7426418
pol/10

f

>> No.7426453

>>7424491
If you mindlessly indulge in life around you searching for the little self-gratifications enough so that you have to label it a belief system you're probably an underhanded edgy little shit who doesn't want to take responsibility for what a failure he is at doing the things he now pretends to not care about. And you're going to get bored jerking off all the time. The only people around you are going to be worthless, and only around you because you validate their worthlessness.

>> No.7426522

>>7426378
i cannot understand why a Christian would agree with the hedonists, even while redefining pleasure

we do not live for pleasure, or for ourselves, we live for God, and God has mercy on us

>> No.7426525

>>7424491
I don't like it.

>> No.7426537

>>7426423
haha! well meme'd!

>> No.7426550

>>7426525
reddit/10

>>7426522
Do you know about Aquinas' concept of beatitude?

>>7426453
no idea what he's talking about/10

>> No.7426558

>>7426550
no i do not

>> No.7426559

Sida.

>> No.7426570

>>7426558
read this:

https://everydaythomist.wordpress.com/2008/12/28/beatitude/

it's an accesible explanation of it.

>>7426559
that's not how you spell aids in english and also not a reason/10

>> No.7426571

>>7426522
I don't live for anyone except myself. God can go fuck himself. He should not of created me if he didn't want to get BTFO so badly.

>> No.7426572
File: 149 KB, 1019x910, freud.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7426572

>>7424491
Because without the quelling of man's narcissism mankind would not be able to maintain civilization.

Hedonism would result in an anarchic order of things, thus man would once again succumb completely to the ironic death that exists within only the realm nature. While it is a struggle to deal with privations of culture and civilization, it is far better than just falling into hedonist debauchery.

>> No.7426576

>>7426572
doesn't understand the topic + pure ideology/10

>> No.7426595

>>7426571
ah, God isn't so bad on the real

>> No.7426627

>>7426537
it's not a meme, virtue is quite literally a meaningless buzzword for 'thing i like very much'.

>> No.7426672

OP, to redefine the concept of "living a good life" hedonism is simply misunderstanding the point of the term.

But let me ask you this. If pleasure is the ultimate good, and human beings can derive pleasure from anything, then how can displeasure even exist? I put it this way because hedonism requires subjectivity to function, otherwise I could easily prove that the objectives of whatever specific type of non-pleasure seeking will be better as an ultimate good.


So, contiuing on our subjective hedonist's path, displeasure must exist must be because either
1) there are certain people who cannot find pleasure in everything
2)There are certain things that nobody can find pleasurable
3) A combination of the above two options.

Lets focus only on the first option, and assume its most extreme case 1) That someone exists who finds nothing pleasurable at all. What to him, is the ultimate good? Rather, if there was an ultimate good for him, it couldn't possibly lie in pleasure and therefore, it becomes evident that in all cases hedonism cannot be the ultimate good.

>> No.7426713

>>7426576
>doesn't understand the topic
I will give you this.
>pure ideology
I haven't read any of Zizek's psycho-analytic works so I will assume that you are correct.

Don't worry anon, I'm an autodidact on the topic, so I should sound like a borderline retard. Just let me dream that I will not forever be pleb-tier.

>> No.7426739

>>7426713
i want to point i wasn't making fun of you personally anon. it's commendable to be an autodidact, and I wish you the very best in your efforts.

some pointers:

>I haven't read any of Zizek's psycho-analytic works so I will assume that you are correct.

zizek isn't very relevant in philosophy, he's more like a comedian for philosophers. he's just shitposting in IRL. the ideology comment has nothing to do with him, he just made the most memetic way of conveying the idea that something is ideological. it's to do with Marx and the Frankfurt school.

normally when people say "pure philosophy' it means that whatever they're quoting assumes that retaining the status quo is a good thing, even if the status quo is something as large as 'civilization'. ideology refers to the unspoken assumption that some things must be good. 'maintaining civilization' superceding the ethics of hedonism, in the case of your post, is an unfounded assumption, and just stating it like its understood to be this way is what ideology means here.

>> No.7426767

>>7426672
>human beings can derive pleasure from anything, then how can displeasure even exist?

because 'can' isn't the same as 'does' you tremendous faggot, and making up some hypothetical person with severe damage to their brain and then saying
>What to him, is the ultimate good?
is supremely retarded

That's like trying to refute Abrahamic morality by saying 'But what if someone HAD to eat pig, I guess that proves god is evil after all'

>> No.7426823

>>7426627
That's only because egocentric retards like to think that morality can be subjective.

>> No.7426875

>>7426767
>>7426767
I never suggested that human beings DO derive pleasure from everything. I was stating the cases where displeasure would be found under subjective hedonism (under which can be argued that someone will find pleasure in pain, making it necessary to define the cases)

Your analogy is flawed because it's impossible to "HAVE" to eat pig willingly. Maybe someone did unwillingly in a deterministic universe but that wouldn't disprove the morality of the situation or cause god to be evil. I'm not sure how that illustrates anything, t b h senpai.

More importantly, I've just given you a case where the ultimate good couldn't possibly be hedonism. Saying "that's supremely retarded" isn't exactly a response.

Remember, if you want hedonism to be irrefutable, it has to be true in every case

>> No.7426896

>>7426672
>But let me ask you this. If pleasure is the ultimate good, and human beings can derive pleasure from anything, then how can displeasure even exist?

displeasure can coexist with pleasure.

>1) there are certain people who cannot find pleasure in everything

i reject such a case. this would not be a person.

>2)There are certain things that nobody can find pleasurable

true.

>> No.7426905

>>7426896
I'll be back in a couple hours to respond to your post

>> No.7426944

>>7426875
>my contrived impossible hypothetical scenario is a quality refutation but yours is bullshit
Sure thing champ

In any case, the REALLY FUCKING OBVIOUS good to seek in your supremely retarded example would be finding a way to be able to feel pleasure again or die trying, which I thought was obvious enough that it didn't need saying but I guess even my initial belief that you had the intellectual quality of pond scum was still a regrettable overestimation of your faculties

I'm done here, hopefully you'll surprise me and admit the error of your ways but frankly I don't care to see whatever ego-saving bullshit you'll surely try pulling next

>> No.7426973

>>7424491
Pleasure is relative, thus removing any hardships from your life is decreasing the value of any utility you acquire.

Additionally, you focus more on the short-term, which is not necessarily sustainable in the long-run. You become parasitic to society because you have to rely on others to continue your hedonistic behavior, because work is ultimately anti-hedonistic.

>> No.7426981

>>7426973
no idea what he's talking about + pure ideology/10

>> No.7426983

>>7426973
Shitty explanation, but I only had a minute :/

>> No.7427454

>>7425868
>you've transcended pleasure-seeking

And Buddhism doesn't consider this to be somehow beyond hedonism. Because Nibbana is again and again referred to as the highest bliss and pleasure, a shadow of which is glimpsed in the highly pleasurable jhana states.

Rather Buddhism is just a particular subset of hedonism.

>Believing yourself to be literally Buddha is delusional

Ironically in Buddhism, they say the same thing. When you achieve Buddhahood you don't think "I am Buddha". If someone says it aloud they are 1. saying it to others solely to assist others on the path (which is acceptable in Buddhism if they internally don't actually think such) or 2. have fallen into a false imitation of enlightenment.

>> No.7427468

>>7426078
>ask pretty much any thinker who has meditated on suffering

see
>>7427454

>> No.7427487

>>7427454
For anyone confused, the early Indian texts that use a term translated to "hedonism" doesn't have anything to do with nuanced hedonist philosophies known in the west.

As such, when these texts critique "hedonism", they are criticizing failed strategies of pleasure-seeking which result to more or consistent forms of unpleasantness, compared to successful strategy of uncovering the the unconditional pleasure of Nibbana.

As such Buddhism is still hedonistic.

>> No.7427530

>1 minute
>thread lasts thirteen hours

>> No.7427602
File: 80 KB, 713x531, 1443041605369.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7427602

>>7427487
>implying nirvana, which literally means "quenching", is supposed to be pleasureful in any sense of the term
>implying nondual states of awareness can be adequately described by language
>implying notions of pleasure and pain exist to a consciousness that has realized the illusory nature of the self

>> No.7427612

>>7424569
Jesus Christ anon, just because he wasn't a sociopath doesn't mean he wasn't fucking insane.

>> No.7427619

>>7427612
I don't think I implied he wasn't. Killing people to satisfy your sexual proclivities is pretty insane.

>> No.7427653

>>7427619
Well calling him "just a wildly kinky fuck" kinda minimizes his crimes desu.
t. Someone from Milwaukee

Did he actually have empathy for his victims though? I didn't think he ever apologized or anything.

>> No.7427656

>>7427602
>implying nirvana, which literally means "quenching", is supposed to be pleasureful in any sense of the term
B-but it is.

>> No.7427658

>>7426944
>>7426944
Just so we're not arguing about specific types of case, I'm talking about a supremely retarded man who has never felt pleasure, never will feel pleasure.

I'm not calling your scenario bullshit as much as I quite honestly don't see its analogous properties.

>>7426905
>>7426896
To respond to this post, What would they be then? Assume everything else they do is normal, but they have a lack of a feeling of pleasure; everything is just a neutral/logical action