Let me add something that I recently added on to my previous post:
Now if you experience a sense of touch, then it is a feeling. But if it neither feels pleasant nor unpleasant, then it is a neutral feeling. But pleasant and unpleasant feelings are truly unique from neutral feelings since they are obviously the only things that feel pleasant and unpleasant and are the only things that are truly good and bad. Now you could try and refute me here by saying that pleasant, unpleasant, and neutral feelings are all different in the sense that they are all different feelings. But that they are the same in the sense that they are all feelings. You could then say to me that since neutral feelings are neutral, then that would also make pleasant and unpleasant feelings neutral as well. In other words, you might try and use my own argument against me.
Therefore, let me apply my argument here for pleasant, unpleasant, and neutral feelings as well. Pleasant, unpleasant, and neutral feelings are all different in the sense that they are different feelings. But they are all the same in the sense that they are all feelings. So this would mean that pleasant and unpleasant feelings would be no different than neutral feelings in the sense that they are all feelings. So they would be the neutral version of pleasant and unpleasant. But since everything else in life besides our feelings are truly unique since they are not feelings, then they would have to be the true version of pleasant and unpleasant. Everything in life besides our feelings that we once defined as good or bad, they would actually be defined as pleasant and unpleasant. This is because, based on my first argument with that line of logic I presented, good and bad can only be truly defined as our pleasure and suffering. So good=pleasure and bad=suffering. Therefore, we cannot say that pleasant=pleasure and unpleasant=suffering since pleasure and suffering can only be defined as good and bad since that is what they are. We cannot say that pleasure and suffering are truly pleasant and unpleasant.
Now that you have read my first line of logic and my new line of logic regarding those feelings, you can see that I have switched around good and bad with pleasant and unpleasant. The morals and ethics that have long been established by humanity have stated that good and bad come from our thoughts, personalities, actions, and other things in life while our pleasure and suffering aren’t what we would define as truly good or bad. These morals and ethics would instead state that pleasure and suffering are pleasant and unpleasant. Therefore, my two arguments have reversed those morals and ethics to where good and bad are defined as our pleasure and suffering while other things in life besides our pleasure and suffering would be defined as pleasant and unpleasant. Sure, the morals and ethics do state that pleasure can be good if it is used to benefit you and others in a rightful way. But that moral version of good that was placed upon pleasure only came from the morals and ethics established by humanity. I said that this version of good is not the true version of good. I said that the true version of good comes from the feeling of pleasure alone in of itself.
Now if you someone manage to counter my argument, then i would ask that you also refer to my other argument supporting hedonism which explains evolution and how depression turns off our good perceptions. I said that pleasure is the only good thing in life based on that evolutionary argument. So I want you to address and refute that argument as well.
Pleasure and pain are reactions, and like all reactions, they must be resisted/controlled. Pain is resisted with pleasure, we all know that, and pleasure is resisted with pain, few of us know that (since most people look at pain and pleasure in a linear, uni-directional, manner.) The mistake most people make, among them hedonists and their brothers masochists, is that pleasure and pain are not static states but dynamic processes: they are rhythmic waves. In order for a man to resist/control his reactions, for a will to control its body, one has to be in tune with one’s rhythms, one must know how to “dance” with one’s body. Pain must be resisted, that is true, but in order for pain to be effectively resisted its rhythm must be known/predicted so that an adequate rhythm of pleasure can be administrated. This is not what hedonists do. They do not “dance”, they flatten the terrain (flat terrain being nil this is a clear case of nihil-ism.) They take a bucket full of pleasure and spill it all over their pain. The series of waves hedonistic will sends is not adapted to the series of waves hedonistic body reacts with. Buckets of pleasure do make the pain go away, but in the long term, they create the opposite problem, which is the excess of pleasure, or numbness/boredom. This problem is then resolved through masochism, which is similar to hedonism, but instead of buckets full of pleasure we now have buckets full of pain and danger. This ultimately creates an excess of pain, forcing the masochist to return to his earlier state of hedonism.
It is extremely difficult for people to accept/affirm/endure pain without becoming masochists (without this pain becoming willed, self-inflicted, in one word, self-referential.) For most people, endurance of pain is so difficult they do not even believe there is such a thing at all, preferring to believe that those capable of enduring pain are in reality masochists. They are so needy and selective that they are completely incapable of comprehending neutral experience of pleasure and pain. For them, you either need/select pleasure (hedonism) or you need/select pain (masochism.) Locked within the boundaries of neediness/selectivity, they are completely incapable of grasping the concept of indifference (they can only grasp it as needy indifference.)
And hedonism leads i.a. to more lies and hypocrisy, to any kind of socialism, to any knd of anti-socialism, to any knd of facsism, to any knd of anti-fascism, to any knd of feminism, to any knd of anti-feminism, just to demise.
Hedonism is one of the attributes of modernity (its main attribute is - by the way - any kind of exaggerated mobilisation).
Phoneutria is desperately trying to save hedonism from being what it is and that is decadence. She really believes that people should only act if such an act pleases them. She really thinks that people should only act if they can benefit from their actions.
I am not looking for another word. “Isms” are always extreme / unhealthy forms of decadence / demise. So i.e. hedonism and decadence have very much to do with each other.
The last one is “homo hedonisticus”. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------[size=150][1]
My pleasure is what I deem as my personal life. I must have that back. Or someone dies. It won’t be an innocent person who is trying to help me recover my pleasure. It would instead be someone who mocks me by telling me to accept my absence of pleasure. How could I possibly accept something that renders me and my life of no good value whatsoever? You say that there are other good things in life besides pleasure. No, I do not believe that. Not in the least bit. This is because, from my personal experience of depression and anhedonia, my thoughts and such without my pleasure are just neutral conscious experiences to me. They have no life and are just nothing more than neutral sounds, images, phrases, etc. without my pleasure. Only my pleasure breathes life into those things and makes me and my life good. There is no transcending experience whatsoever from my thoughts and such alone without my pleasure. Again, it has nothing to do with me attributing neutral value to those said things that is making them neutral experiences for me. They really are all neutral in of themselves without my pleasure and it has nothing to do with me attributing neutral value or any other value to them. I live life to experience it and to be transcended by it. I am not some bland person who is fine living a life like some robot or someone who just lives life like a job and nothing more. I am more profound and greater than that. Therefore, I need my pleasure back to regain that said profound and great life.
If you were to make me watch a video of Hitler slaughtering the innocent Jews, I would perceive Hitler as being a bad person. But I would also realize that this version of bad is neutral (fake). Feelings of suffering are the only true bad things in life while feelings of pleasure are the only true good things in life. Therefore, if Hitler didn’t have any feelings of suffering and only derived pleasure from slaughtering the Jews, then that pleasure would make him a good person. But since the Jews experienced feelings of suffering, then that would make them bad. Why do I say this? It’s not because I am some sociopath or anything of the sort. Sociopaths have little to no empathy. I have empathy. If I saw Hitler or someone harming someone or some innocent living creature, I would feel very sorry for that living person/creature. However, I would realize that the psychopath would actually be a good person for deriving pleasure in harming that person/innocent living thing.
So, again, why do I say this? It is because my personal experience of depression and anhedonia (absence of pleasure) have made me realize that pleasure is the only truly good experience in life. I now realize that our thoughts and such without our pleasure are all neutral and are all neutral conscious experiences. If, let’s pretend, I never had depression or anhedonia, then I would truly perceive Hitler as being a horrible person even though he derived pleasure from harming all the Jews. Therefore, you might then say that my depression and anhedonia have distorted my perceptions. But this is false. I now have every reason to believe that pleasure is the one and only true good thing in life. Please refer to my other packets which contain arguments and reasonings supporting this claim.
The antagonist of the hedonism will not vanish or sublate in a synthesis as long as the hedonism itself will not vanish or sublate in a synthesis. Either both vanish or sublate in a synthesis or no one of them.
Everyone is different, people derive pleasure from different things, obviously we are destroying the planet because of this, because people basically are hedonists at heart without looking at the larger picture, which causes more suffering for more people, so we have this thing called ethics, which transcends Hedonism, where someone looks squarely at the world and says if I do this, even though I may enjoy it, the end result is a bad outcome. I often agree with your philosophy actually… I think we should all be raised in our own worlds, where some super being plays the roles of everyone else but never suffers from our mistakes and teaches us how to be good moral agents… then we meet the people it was pretending to be once they have perfected themselves morally and exchange our stories.
If the distinction of the so-called „progressives“ and the so-called „conservatives“ makes any sense (beside the propaganda), then this: only the conservatives can stop the destructive exploitation of all living beings, the whole planet Earth, and its neighborhood (this all has to be concerved!), because the progressives are hedonists , thus the most destructive exploiters.
Decadence isn’t an ideology, kiddo, it’s a attribute of a person.
Not “people”. Me.
Tell me, kid. If I act as I please, using myself as reference for my actions, does that differ from nobility as described by Nietzsche?
Not rhetorical.
Pay attention, grandma. It does differ. Noble does not mean self-referential, solipsistic or selfish. Noble means half-selfish half-selfless. Be ay el ay an see ee, balance.
my kid said the same as you. Such a safe name.
