Dorian Gray

i’m reading dorian gray and it’s like meant for me. i believe in productive hedonsim…there is no more to life than your experience, logic, at it’s very core would tell you to feed that experience. productive hedonism is, if it were a religion, the religion of life itself

the book says things like most people who live for the senses live an animalistic life but that living for th senses hasnt been truely realized. and that there should be a new type of hedonism

i think that this book is the book that defines oscar wilde as a person. in the book basil, the painter, says that he was afraid the painting showed too much of his soul (basically implying that he is gay and the painting shopws that because of the way he worships the(male) image of dorain gray) and i think that oscar wilde felt that way about his book

it’s an awesome book. i just think it was a little too meant for it’s time in the same way that a movie like scary movie would be completely stupid for a person who was born today to watch in 15 years because everything in the movie is a reference to the pop culture of the time

let’s have a discussion about aestheticism, hedonsim in general, the book itself :banana-dance:

Why don’t we start with an exegesis of what productive hedonism is. How does it break down as a philosophy?

pretty much self explanitory
basically it is true hedonism. an ultimate pleasure seeker would obviously think of the future

“these drugs are awesome but too much of them will put me in the hospital, not only that but enjoy them so much more when i do them every once in a while”

sensual pleasure is not equivalent to happiness

iLIKEBOOkS to. i TH iN k sOME R BETTER THAN OTHER S i THiNK
eDITED FORpuntUation

It’s not been said that it is. What’s your point?

Bellend.

No, but emotional pleasure is.

wrong again

How enlightening. Care to explain why?

emotions are sensations

also your quote that meaning and purpose have no distinguishing characteristics is dubious. purpose is defined by recurring patterns or a sense of fate. basic laws of physics, therefore, are evidence of purpose.

sounds like a personal problem to me… :laughing:

i think a lot of us suffer from a misplaced sense of happiness and pleasure. i want to be in control of my emotions. i want my happiness to follow logic. and personal logic is always selfish…or else it isn’t too logical

happiness is an emotion (and a sensation)

i’m gunna throw in the word i think you’re thinking of: guilt
i don’t even like saying it. i think the word as well as the sensation shouldn’t exist

you don’t want it to follow logic, you want it to follow your conscious desires for existential fulfillment. when you perceive the meaning and purpose of something to be not what you desire it to be, you are left unfulfilled/uncontented. logic is nothing but a partial way for us to satisfy our perceptions of existence by addition of further meaning and purpose. because if we can ascertain how something will probably behave, we can subsequently apply to and receive purpose from it.

logic is also often pragmatic, but the pragmatism does not contribute additional meaning and purpose to our perceptions, just as things like sensations do not. however, a constant influx of negative sensations may lead to a conscious rebellion against or abandonment of perceived purpose. hence why conflict is so powerful in inducing change.

but even this conflict is an extension of conscious desire- the primordial duel of the ego and the superego. when conflict thoroughly overpowers purpose there is self-destruction and eventual suiciding out. when purpose throughly overpowers conflict, there is complacency, weakness and eventual annihilation/subjugation from external forces. hence why attainment of equilibrium is necessary.

I would also like to add that most people do not have the conscious capacity of attaining this, and so they cling to whatever society tries to offer them in terms of fulfillment. Obviously lots of purpose and minimal conflict for it’s sedative effect.

Then either happiness is not an emotion, or some sensations are happiness.

When, prey tell, did I say that?

If you say so… shall we get back to the subject at hand?

One cannot experience the fullest life without learning about life, something hedonists would not like because learning in general is a painful experience. Hedonists would choose life as a rich, bottomless pit playboy (or playgirl) drinking, smoking, eating delicious food, and having orgasmic sex all day in a mansion on the beach. All of these things are easy to do, and are in fact very pleasurable to do. A true hedonist would not choose to learn math all day and write essays and read boring history books over the former pleasures. But in order to experience life to the fullest one must endure the pain of learning to broaden one’s appreciation of certain pleasures. A person whom was familiar with Shakespeare, drama, and read a lot about the subject would extract more pleasure from a Shakespearean play than somebody who never even heard of Shakespeare watching the same play. In other words, if you need to endure pain to increase pleasure then you are in fact hedonistic but are not a true hedonist. And there are many people whom would despise the life of a hedonist where pleasure is the sole motive for existence. Some people, in fact, attain a sense of well-being be denying themsleves physical pleasures, as in the case of a person pushing away a bowl of ice cream. They deny themselves the pleasure of eating ice cream, yet they experience a greater sense of well-being in doing so. This well-being is not the same type of pleasure as one would derive from eating the ice cream, putting into doubt the premise that pleasure is the most important goal in life.

emotions are labels human beings use to distinguish sensations they feel. nothing more

when it’s characteristics were likened to something without meaning or purpose

And what does that say about happiness?

I never said anything like that.

i lost me shirt . an i lost me trousers. i lost me trousers eh. wheres me hat me coat ee i’m a lad an half

existentialism is logical: my point. if you believe otherwise it is because your parents/society succeeded in passing on the antihuman conditioning to you. i’m not creating matrixes that exist to satisfy themselves (if…you get what i mean? it’s the same thing that you are getting at when you say “logic is nothing but a partial way for us to satisfy our perceptions of existence by addition of further meaning and purpose”) these matrixes create false foundations of reality and you begin to decide what is good vs bad based on this false foundation. this is basic and pure logic. i’m bashing down every foundation besides the one that is me (what buddhists and nihilst fail to do. they want a perspectiveless perspective. it makes no sense)

i ahve to go. will continue later