Know Thyself

Nothing in Excess
 
HomePortalFAQMemberlistSearchRegisterLog in

Share | 
 

 Hedonism or This and that: Discourse on the Method of Rightly Conducting your Reason and Seeking Truth in the Sciences

View previous topic View next topic Go down 
Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
AuthorMessage
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Hedonism or This and that: Discourse on the Method of Rightly Conducting your Reason and Seeking Truth in the Sciences Fri Jul 04, 2014 10:36 pm

Satyr wrote:
By the gods, the feral boy will post another inane comment in a thread way over his head...

LaughingMan wrote:

Ah, yes, you're one of those following a Christian humanist metanarrative where human beings are the chosen species that are special and unique here on earth.  That's cute.

All we are is a more evolved primate. [Another slightly smarter animal]  That's it.  Deal with it......
"Meta-narrative"....
I like.
It almost seems like you are a thinker.

And when you get over elitism not only being about bling-bling, and wealth, wild-child, you might delve into how man being a smarter animal leads to some men being smarter than feral boys so desperate that Armageddon is now their only hope.

You see, boy, if anyone is a Christian, it is you.
Who else, but a self-hating, Christian, would dream of the end, and death, as a beginning of a "better life"?
Who else but a degenerate, life-hating, hypocrite, Christian, would sacrifice their own child to fulfill their commitment to themselves?

You, boy, are not only a Jew, and an idiot, but, and rightly so, one who is so aware of his own inferiority that he now only hopes all die so that it disappears, and all memory of it along with it.

You, boy, belong with Purple Dragon, over on ILP.
The only reason you are here is pussy, and you are annoyingly obtuse in every Forum....including your own.

*Sighs* Here we go again.

Quote :
"Meta-narrative"....
I like.
It almost seems like you are a thinker.


Geez, I'm so glad the all knowing wise man on the mountain has time for little uninteresting me.


Quote :
And when you get over elitism not only being about bling-bling, and wealth, wild-child, you might delve into how man being a smarter animal leads to some men being smarter

Then you might be able to entertain the notion that some people so entirely arrogant drunk with power through underlying hubris have the ability to destroy themselves and the entire world around them.

I do concern myself with power but notice that I always talk about only having a small portion of it.  I never speak about wanting it all. I try not to be that arrogant because I've seen what arrogance does to people.

You aristocrats or so called noble elitists on other hand never know when it becomes too much where excess becomes the norm.

Quote :
than feral boys so desperate that Armageddon is now their only hope.

Not my only hope.  I have a couple of other aces under my sleeves.

Quote :
You see, boy, if anyone is a Christian, it is you.
Who else, but a self-hating, Christian, would dream of the end, and death, as a beginning of a "better life"?

Except that it is not the total end of everything in that I see a transformation afterwards where an independent world emerges where human beings become back in touch with nature and their primordial selves.

It only becomes the end of this paradigm that we are living in.

Your conclusion is thus baseless.

Quote :
Who else but a degenerate, life-hating, hypocrite, Christian, would sacrifice their own child to fulfill their commitment to themselves?


Don't speak about stuff you know nothing about.

Quote :
You, boy, are not only a Jew, and an idiot, but, and rightly so, one who is so aware of his own inferiority that he now only hopes all die so that it disappears, and all memory of it along with it.

You are a blowhard that is full of himself.

One who has a false sense of superiority.


Quote :
You, boy, belong with Purple Dragon, over on ILP.
The only reason you are here is pussy, and you are annoyingly obtuse in every Forum....including your own.

Here only because of pussy? You haven't the slightest clue at all about me.


Last edited by LaughingMan on Fri Jul 04, 2014 11:23 pm; edited 6 times in total
Back to top Go down
Mo
Lamb
avatar

Gender : Male Aries Posts : 276
Join date : 2013-02-02
Age : 34
Location : Northerly

PostSubject: Re: Hedonism or This and that: Discourse on the Method of Rightly Conducting your Reason and Seeking Truth in the Sciences Fri Jul 04, 2014 10:37 pm

Satyr wrote:
The ascetic wants to change himself to endure more need/suffering...and so he does not minimize his experience of the world, he becomes more tolerant of it; more able to endure higher levels of existence.

If human existence is an ordering in a chaos, and the static state is one of suffering/need, then to endure more need/suffering would mean enduring less order and more chaos.

(Should you be talking to Joker, instead of me?)

Quote :
Given that pleasure is pleasure, and by all accounts fat girls put more work into the sexual act, because they want to please their man more, and many pretty girls are known for being cold cunts who want to be pleasured,

Seriously? Are you trying to tell me that fucking a fat cow is the same as fucking a beautiful woman?

Quote :
a hedonist who is not a hypocrite coward, would opt to fuck the lesser female he will have a better chance of getting, than masturbate on the hope that one day he will get the pretty model.

If the choice is between a fat cow and a beautiful woman, the hedonist would better himself to get the beautiful woman---because fucking a fat cow isn't pleasure at all. Do an experiment. Type "fat woman" into a Google search for images, and see what you get. You are pathetic.

Quote :
Quote :
Some values simply do not need further justification, because they are their own justification. That’s not circular, that’s foundational.
No need for justification, like for morality, or for pleasure.'
It is so "just because it is so".

Some truths do not need further justification, because they are their own justification. For example, all analytical truths (i.e., statements that are true just by the meaning of the terms). E.g., “All bachelors are unmarried men”. You don’t need to examine the world, or any evidence, or anything outside of that claim itself, to justify the truth of that claim---it is its own justification. "Pleasure is good" is an analytical truth.

Quote :
The concept is sanctified by making it into an end....which means, by detaching it from all earthly utilities.

An ‘end’ is a goal or purpose---a worldly one. Without one, you are a nihilist.





Whoever you are talking to, or about, in the rest of your posts... it is garbage.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
There Will Be Blood

avatar

Gender : Male Posts : 852
Join date : 2013-09-08
Location : Taiwan

PostSubject: Re: Hedonism or This and that: Discourse on the Method of Rightly Conducting your Reason and Seeking Truth in the Sciences Fri Jul 04, 2014 11:03 pm

There's no convincing one another going around here. So why the fuck do you always return for more. (rhetorical question)
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 15229
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Hedonism or This and that: Discourse on the Method of Rightly Conducting your Reason and Seeking Truth in the Sciences Fri Jul 04, 2014 11:42 pm

Mooooooo wrote:

If human existence is an ordering in a chaos, and the static state is one of suffering/need, then to endure more need/suffering would mean enduring less order and more chaos.
(Should you be talking to Joker, instead of me?)
No static state, you simpleton.
Need/Suffering is the sensation of change, the attrition of time, upon ordering - upon an organism.
To want to decrease the need/suffering, rather than increase your endurance tolerance of existence, is nihilistic.
It is decadent.

Mooooooo wrote:
Whether I talk to you or twiddle-dee or twiddle-dum makes only a small difference.    

Seriously? Are you trying to tell me that fucking a fat cow is the same as fucking a beautiful woman?
Not to me...but I'm an ascetic, not a hedonist.

For me it's not only about the pleasure.

To a hedonist who wants to "maximize pleasure" fucking what is easiest, is a maximization strategy.
More so since the orgasm is the end, moron, and no other consideration would factor in, such as reproduction potential, health, personality; and aesthetics would only make a small difference to the orgasm, particularly if you factor in cost/benefit....as in potential risk/cost/SUFFERING, versus the potential benefit/enhanced pleasure.
Suffering before/after, you retard, would have to be factored into the evaluation of the pleasing deed itself.

Thing is, you are already programmed to think beyond the pleasure, as in health, virility, potential for birthing....but you, being a moron, think that it's only about the orgasm...
An animal is pure hedonist.
It only thinks of satisfying its needs.
It has no clue why it becomes horny, goes crazy at certain smells emanating from certain individuals, it (re)acts to the sensations intuitively, instinctively....it maximizes its pleasure potential.

In theory going for the less attractive female increases your potential to satisfy your need, and find pleasure.
Postponing gratification on the off-chance that something better will come along, refusing to settle, is ascetic, you hypocrite.
But, since you are a hypocrite and a coward, you can say that the thought of a pretty girl is pleasing, so waiting to gratify yourself is also hedonistic....because at this point EVERYTHING is hedonistic, including morality.

Good feels goo, ergo it is hedonistic.

Like an octopus afraid, you are farting ink all over the place hoping to conceal yourself...now that we've seen how dumb you really are.
You should have kept your mouth shut and played on your mystique...you hypocrite, because now every time you speak your stupidity shines bright.

If we take your positions as fact then every fuckin' organism is a hedonist because it eats and drinks water and this feels good, and it has no clue why it feels good,  because its end is the sensation, not what the sensation indicates...sort of like a dumb Jew.
Every organism avoids suffering, you simpleton...ergo evolution should have been called Survival of the Hedonistic.
and you, having reduced all of existence doesn't to the sensation you feel, are not only a woman, in psychology, but stunted, retarded, in your development - no man at all....a boy.  

Mooooooo wrote:
If the choice is between a fat cow and a beautiful woman, the hedonist would better himself to get the beautiful woman---because fucking a fat cow isn't pleasure at all. Do an experiment. Type "fat woman" into a Google search for images, and see what you get. You are pathetic.
Yes, and if a supermodel and a fat cow suddenly both presented themselves before me, on a platter, like in the dreams of some degenerate, naive, imbecile, the choice would be easy....
Minimal effort.

But in real life things do not work quite like that.
In real life, you imbecile, no matter what you look like, more effort is expended to attain the female everyone wants, rather than it is to attain the female fewer want.
Therefore, you stupid retard, in a cost/benefit analysis where a Hedonist wants to MINIMIZE suffering, as in work, effort, struggle, prolonged periods of not being gratified, the fat cow would be his best bet...
No?
No, you sad, moron, simpleton?
Remember, the only end is pleasure....quality is of a secondary concern because it adds little in the degree of pleasure that will justify the costs...and if you fuck ten fat chicks for every one average one....then you are maximizing your pleasure...you sad fuck.

By the way, what's a naive, romantic, idealistic idiot, like you, doing with a cynical, manipulative cunt, feeding on emotions and desperate for attention?
Is it the heightened pleasure she promises?
HA!!!

That you called Heidegger an idiot is not only hilarious, but orgasmicly so.
Please, never stop posting here, retard...you are easy, and easy pleasure is maximizing my returns.
A stupid Jew man-child calling Heidegger a "fool"....
HA!!!!

Mooooooo wrote:
Some truths do not need further justification, because they are their own justification. For example, all analytical truths (i.e., statements that are true just by the meaning of the terms). E.g., “All bachelors are unmarried men”.
By the gods you are a retard.
Imbecile, marriage is a human construct.
There is no bachelorhood, or marriage, outside human skulls.
Marriage is an artifice, an idea.

Suffering<>NEED<>Pleasure are not human constructs.

Moron, 1+1=2 because you've already accepted 1 as self-evident...when, in fact, it does not exist outside your skull, except in it as a symbol.
Similarly, you nit-wit....justice, morality, all human concepts with no meaning outside human brains.
Humanity as some asexual concept is also a nihilistic construct...

You live in a self-referential, world of words (codes)...a true nihilist, and Judeo-Christian buffoon.

God, you idiot is also a human construct with no existence outside the human skull, and like all morons Christians also claim that He does not need justification.

You, dear fag, are an imbecile!!!
A very common one.

Mooooooo wrote:
You don’t need to examine the world, or any evidence, or anything outside of that claim itself, to justify the truth of that claim---it is its own justification. "Pleasure is good" is an analytical truth.
You do need to reference reality, you idiot, if your motive is objectivity, lucidity, clarity, honesty...but if your motive is to hide, to cower away, to redefine the world so you are saved from it, like idiot nihilistic cowards do, then you can indulge in the easy method of calling everything that you like "good" and everything you do not like "bad".

But I, moron, am not a pussy-obsessed nihilist, like you...and seeing the world as it is, and not like i want it to be, is my only motive before I die.
So, for me, saying that pleasure is a negative because it negates the need which is the experience of organizing in the entropic environment, and which if left unsatisfied grows to what we call suffering/pain, is not a matter of me liking it; of feeling pleasure in the idea of it; of having my ego stroked...but of honesty....you coward!!!
HONESTY!!!

And it's my honesty that makes me vulgar towards feces like you.
I could fake it and pretend to respect you...but why would I?

Mooooooo wrote:
An ‘end’ is a goal or purpose---a worldly one. Without one, you are a nihilist.
Exactly, you stupid cunt.
And you know what else makes you a nihilist?
Finding a goal which places you outside reality, which corrects reality, which helps you escape reality, which numbs you to reality.
And every goal exposes the mind that strives towards it.

In your case to numb your sensation of existence, because you are a weakling, is what defines you as a person...now you continue pretending nobody knows you.
You expose yourself through your opinion, twat.
You've made self-medication your ideal...and like all ideals it characterizes the mind that holds it as his end.
And you, despite your little word games, where you've practically made hedonism mean everything that promises pleasure, or gives you a sensation of pleasure, including the idea of hope in a potential higher pleasure when you deny yourself pleasure in the immediate, have exposed yourself as the degenerate that you are.

Blood is thicker than water, after all.  

My motive, my goal, is to see, to know, to understand...and then to enjoy.
You see the hierarchy of priorities, boy?
THAT defines me!

Mooooooo wrote:
Whoever you are talking to, or about, in the rest of your posts... it is garbage.
Riiiight...
You keep repeating that when you stick dildos up your anus, boy.
Never miss an opportunity to pleasure yourself with a verbal masturbation session.  

You don't care about clarity...you only want to feel good about yourself in the world.

You are a degenerate.

_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://satyr.canadian-forum.com/
Mo
Lamb
avatar

Gender : Male Aries Posts : 276
Join date : 2013-02-02
Age : 34
Location : Northerly

PostSubject: Re: Hedonism or This and that: Discourse on the Method of Rightly Conducting your Reason and Seeking Truth in the Sciences Sat Jul 05, 2014 2:54 am

Satyr wrote:
Need/Suffering is the sensation of change, the attrition of time, upon ordering - upon an organism.

If human existence is an ordering in a flux/chaos, and the base state (i.e., chaos) is felt as suffering/need, then to endure more need/suffering would mean enduring less order and more chaos.

(Should you be talking to Joker, instead of me?)

Quote :
Therefore, you stupid retard, in a cost/benefit analysis where a Hedonist wants to MINIMIZE suffering, as in work, effort, struggle, prolonged periods of not being gratified, the fat cow would be his best bet...
No?

No. Do a google search for “fat woman”, and pick a picture of any one. Fucking that (no matter how many times) IS suffering, unless you are as pathetically disgusting as you are. You said that you wouldn't touch that, but the fact that you think that's maximizing pleasure at all makes me want to puke.



...Now, gather around as I read to you from an actual hedonist…

John Stuart Mill wrote:
Now, such a theory of life (hedonism) excites in many minds, and among them in some of the most estimable in feeling and purpose, inveterate dislike. To suppose that life has (as they express it) no higher end than pleasure- no better and nobler object of desire and pursuit- they designate as utterly mean and grovelling; as a doctrine worthy only of swine, to whom the followers of Epicurus were, at a very early period, contemptuously likened…

When thus attacked, the Epicureans have always answered, that it is not they, but their accusers, who represent human nature in a degrading light; since the accusation supposes human beings to be capable of no pleasures except those of which swine are capable.

…for if the sources of pleasure were precisely the same to human beings and to swine, the rule of life which is good enough for the one would be good enough for the other. The comparison of the Epicurean life to that of beasts is felt as degrading, precisely because a beast's pleasures do not satisfy a human being's conceptions of happiness. Human beings have faculties more elevated than the animal appetites, and when once made conscious of them, do not regard anything as happiness which does not include their gratification.

But there is no known Epicurean theory of life which does not assign to the pleasures of the intellect, of the feelings and imagination, and of the moral sentiments, a much higher value as pleasures than to those of mere sensation.

If I am asked, what I mean by difference of quality in pleasures, or what makes one pleasure more valuable than another, merely as a pleasure, except its being greater in amount, there is but one possible answer. Of two pleasures, if there be one to which all or almost all who have experience of both give a decided preference, irrespective of any feeling of moral obligation to prefer it, that is the more desirable pleasure. If one of the two is, by those who are competently acquainted with both, placed so far above the other that they prefer it, even though knowing it to be attended with a greater amount of discontent, and would not resign it for any quantity of the other pleasure which their nature is capable of, we are justified in ascribing to the preferred enjoyment a superiority in quality, so far outweighing quantity as to render it, in comparison, of small account.

It is indisputable that the being whose capacities of enjoyment are low, has the greatest chance of having them fully satisfied; and a highly endowed being will always feel that any happiness which he can look for, as the world is constituted, is imperfect. But he can learn to bear its imperfections, if they are at all bearable; and they will not make him envy the being who is indeed unconscious of the imperfections, but only because he feels not at all the good which those imperfections qualify. It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied. And if the fool, or the pig, are a different opinion, it is because they only know their own side of the question. The other party to the comparison knows both sides.

It may be objected, that many who are capable of the higher pleasures, occasionally, under the influence of temptation, postpone them to the lower. But this is quite compatible with a full appreciation of the intrinsic superiority of the higher. Men often, from infirmity of character, make their election for the nearer good, though they know it to be the less valuable; and this no less when the choice is between two bodily pleasures, than when it is between bodily and mental. They pursue sensual indulgences to the injury of health, though perfectly aware that health is the greater good.

It may be further objected, that many who begin with youthful enthusiasm for everything noble, as they advance in years sink into indolence and selfishness. But I do not believe that those who undergo this very common change, voluntarily choose the lower description of pleasures in preference to the higher. I believe that before they devote themselves exclusively to the one, they have already become incapable of the other.

Back to top Go down
View user profile
There Will Be Blood

avatar

Gender : Male Posts : 852
Join date : 2013-09-08
Location : Taiwan

PostSubject: Re: Hedonism or This and that: Discourse on the Method of Rightly Conducting your Reason and Seeking Truth in the Sciences Sat Jul 05, 2014 3:17 am

Quote :
No. Do a google search for “fat woman”, and pick a picture of any one. Fucking that (no matter how many times) IS suffering, unless you are as pathetically disgusting as you are. You said that you wouldn't touch that, but the fact that you think that's maximizing pleasure at all makes me want to puke.

That aint very PC, are you aware of the BBW community? You remain utterly rhetorical. I think you should read your posts and see how they sound. Would you actually say that kind of stuff IRL and not look retarded in the meantime? Would your mama be proud investigating this material?
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Anfang

avatar

Gender : Male Virgo Posts : 2101
Join date : 2013-01-23
Age : 34
Location : CET

PostSubject: Re: Hedonism or This and that: Discourse on the Method of Rightly Conducting your Reason and Seeking Truth in the Sciences Sat Jul 05, 2014 5:00 am

Mo wrote:
If human existence is an ordering in a flux/chaos, and the base state (i.e., chaos) is felt as suffering/need, then to endure more need/suffering would mean enduring less order and more chaos.

If you live in the jungle and you want to cultivate a garden then you gonna have to endure cutting your way through the bushes and fell some trees to create one. To impose your order you have to expose yourself to the chaotic jungle. Actually you have to do it again and again, just to maintain the garden and keep the jungle at bay. If you keep the machete in the hut then your order, the garden, will eventually get swallowed up by the jungle.

Back to top Go down
View user profile
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 15229
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Hedonism or This and that: Discourse on the Method of Rightly Conducting your Reason and Seeking Truth in the Sciences Sat Jul 05, 2014 8:32 am

Moooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo wrote:

If human existence is an ordering in a flux/chaos, and the base state (i.e., chaos) is felt as suffering/need, then to endure more need/suffering would mean enduring less order and more chaos.
Repeating the same shit?

Yes, entropy cannot be escaped....it can be endured or the sensation of it numbed.

When one endures more chaos one can order more of it.

Sorry, no escape, boy.
Avoidance/Endurance....one leads to atrophy, and slow decline, the other stresses itself and builds muscle.


When a weakling, coward, hypocrite, like you, avoids weights, let's say....is he escaping mass, or simply atrophying his muscles to the point where he suffers more, in time?
When a lifter of weights, exercises (askisis) does he like the suffering/pain, (let's forget about the body's defensive mechanism that produces endorphin rushes) or is he purposefully, willfully, stressing himself to build endurance to mass?
Then a weight that is comfortable, not stressful/suffering, to one, is unbearable to the other.

Moooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo wrote:
(Should you be talking to Joker, instead of me?)
Joker is a pure nihilist, moron.
Not only do I love life, but I fill the absence of meanings and ideals with my own.
What I don't do is trick myself using them.
I know what ideals are, and what purpose they serve.

I enjoy without putting any great emphasis on my animal automatic responses, by sanctifying them.
It is BECAUSE I know what ideals are, and what pleasure is, that I am never addicted to it.  

Moooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo wrote:
No. Do a google search for “fat woman”, and pick a picture of any one. Fucking that (no matter how many times) IS suffering, unless you are as pathetically disgusting as you are.
Moron, your disgust is rooted in evolution psychology, which does not put pleasure as its end, but where pleasure is a mechanism indicating a gratification of a need.

Your instinctive reaction to unfit females is built into the mechanism where pleasure is NOT the end, you imbecile.
The end being a healthy, viable, offspring.....not the orgasm. The orgasm is a means to the end.
Your aesthetics pleasure being a product of an end other than pleasure itself.
Why is a particular female form appealing, aesthetically, because it promises an end beyond the pleasure which is simply a release of pressurized libidinal energies.

And MAXIMIZING would mean you would go for the less than perfect, you imbecile.
You would therefore fuck a pretty dumb dullard, like yourself, rather than a highly intelligent, interesting, fat girl?
See why you are a decadent, hypocritical cunt?
In your pathetic mind, the pretty girl has been idealized into something divine, and the fat girl something vile....when the pleasure you speak of might be housed in a form you find instinctually unappealing.
Your instincts which have evolved with more than getting you off as their end, make one appealing, on appearance...whereas the sophisticated pleasures, which you then profess to be after, housed in an unfit, form, would be avoided, because like a dumb manimal you only choose using the base part of your brain, and then rationalize your choices using whatever amount of cerebral cortex your genes gave you.

I would expect a true hedonist, with more than his balls in mind, to MAXIMIZE his pleasure by thinking of the female's mind....her character, personality.
A hot chick is unendurable after the sexual act is over.
A day has 24 hours...1 hour, of pleasure for 23 hours of misery?
Not maximizing.

You are a HYPOCRITE!!!

You missed everything I said to you, you degenerate fuck.
Which means I will no longer be wasting any of my time with you.

Moooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo wrote:
You said that you wouldn't touch that, but the fact that you think that's maximizing pleasure at all makes me want to puke.
Therefore, you are a hypocrite, not interested in maximizing pleasure, but willing to do without rather than settle.
You are also a naive, romantic idealist, who has made pleasure a word denoting your ideal: the perfect woman, in the perfect place, giving you the perfect pleasure with no repercussions, no costs, no strings attached.
No pain, all gain.

Another puts a different term to represent the absent absolute: power, love, god, beauty...
Each projected ideal exposing the mind that considers it his end.

John Stuart Mill wrote:
Now, such a theory of life (hedonism) excites in many minds, and among them in some of the most estimable in feeling and purpose, inveterate dislike. To suppose that life has (as they express it) no higher end than pleasure- no better and nobler object of desire and pursuit- they designate as utterly mean and grovelling; as a doctrine worthy only of swine, to whom the followers of Epicurus were, at a very early period, contemptuously likened…

When thus attacked, the Epicureans have always answered, that it is not they, but their accusers, who represent human nature in a degrading light; since the accusation supposes human beings to be capable of no pleasures except those of which swine are capable.

…for if the sources of pleasure were precisely the same to human beings and to swine, the rule of life which is good enough for the one would be good enough for the other. The comparison of the Epicurean life to that of beasts is felt as degrading, precisely because a beast's pleasures do not satisfy a human being's conceptions of happiness. Human beings have faculties more elevated than the animal appetites, and when once made conscious of them, do not regard anything as happiness which does not include their gratification.

But there is no known Epicurean theory of life which does not assign to the pleasures of the intellect, of the feelings and imagination, and of the moral sentiments, a much higher value as pleasures than to those of mere sensation.

If I am asked, what I mean by difference of quality in pleasures, or what makes one pleasure more valuable than another, merely as a pleasure, except its being greater in amount, there is but one possible answer. Of two pleasures, if there be one to which all or almost all who have experience of both give a decided preference, irrespective of any feeling of moral obligation to prefer it, that is the more desirable pleasure. If one of the two is, by those who are competently acquainted with both, placed so far above the other that they prefer it, even though knowing it to be attended with a greater amount of discontent, and would not resign it for any quantity of the other pleasure which their nature is capable of, we are justified in ascribing to the preferred enjoyment a superiority in quality, so far outweighing quantity as to render it, in comparison, of small account.

It is indisputable that the being whose capacities of enjoyment are low, has the greatest chance of having them fully satisfied; and a highly endowed being will always feel that any happiness which he can look for, as the world is constituted, is imperfect. But he can learn to bear its imperfections, if they are at all bearable; and they will not make him envy the being who is indeed unconscious of the imperfections, but only because he feels not at all the good which those imperfections qualify. It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied. And if the fool, or the pig, are a different opinion, it is because they only know their own side of the question. The other party to the comparison knows both sides.

It may be objected, that many who are capable of the higher pleasures, occasionally, under the influence of temptation, postpone them to the lower. But this is quite compatible with a full appreciation of the intrinsic superiority of the higher. Men often, from infirmity of character, make their election for the nearer good, though they know it to be the less valuable; and this no less when the choice is between two bodily pleasures, than when it is between bodily and mental. They pursue sensual indulgences to the injury of health, though perfectly aware that health is the greater good.

It may be further objected, that many who begin with youthful enthusiasm for everything noble, as they advance in years sink into indolence and selfishness. But I do not believe that those who undergo this very common change, voluntarily choose the lower description of pleasures in preference to the higher. I believe that before they devote themselves exclusively to the one, they have already become incapable of the other.
And so?
You do understand that if "God said so" and "Nietzsche said so" does not impress me, then this doesn't either.

I've explained what pleasure is, turd...and projecting pleasure as a possible hypothetical abstraction to enjoy using the imagination, purifying the end of all its imperfections, is what idealists do.

"Appetite" = NEEEEEEEEEEEEEED
Basic needs then evolving along with the species to more sophisticated needs.

It is that man must endure more profound need/suffering that he seeks for more profound negations to it.
It is that man lives beyond the immediate, if he is not a degenerate coward, like you, coming into contact with possible sources of suffering, that he can also come into contact with possible sources of alleviating this suffering.

The aesthetic is pleasing because it is a promise, a heightened order, offering a heightened possibility.
The more imagination is present, the more temporally deep is this projection.
It is the same imagination that opens the human mind to higher forms of need/suffering...as in longing, existential angst, melancholy...    

It is BECAUSE need/suffering is easy, and the experience of existence that pleasure rises as man's enjoyment of the rare, the ephemeral, the valuable.
Every fuckin' animal has pleasure as its end, because it is too simple to think about what this feeling is, and only man can wish to return to that animal state.  

Like I said, you retard, more sophisticated brains are exposed to more need/suffering, because they are more aware of existence....and so, they strive to negate this need/suffering with more sophisticated forms of pleasure.

An example...an animal is never bored, at least not a simpler species...but only larger brained animals can be suffer ennui.  
Heidegger, whom you are vastly more intelligent than, explored what boredom is...and I've offered my own definitions...
But given your thickness, and your degenerate cowardly state, I see nothing but suffering in my engagement with you....in the form of frustration.
Like discussing a movie with a two-year old.
Maximizing my pleasure, means avoiding retards, like you.

Actually I am more interested in your psychology than the shit bouncing around in the emptiness of your skull.
Like why you find opinionated, intelligent females so attractive?
I suspect it has to do with your aesthetic masturbatory lifestyle, and mother issues.
A desire for the perfect mate, which for you is imagined as a mother/mentor type.
Low sex-drive meaning your libidinal energies are directed towards high-brow aesthetics - creativity supplanting procreative needs.

A need to purify the ideal, by cleansing it of all motives, particularly the ones you consider base and that make you want to "puke" - making it an end in itself, a good for its own sake.
The simplicity of turning reality on its head in the display where you wanted to present the possibility that if pleasure is a negation of need/suffering, or a lower grade of it, then the opposite is also true - tells me you want to detach from the sensual and immerse yourself in the Platonic eidos, the world of perfect ideals; a place where everything is authentic, clean, especially love - love free of lust.
Love-making, for you, would be like a meditative act, of pure aesthetics - two minds connecting, with the bodies being a unavoidable element  and a projection of psychological ideals: body as purified noumenon.
Body as an extension of the mind/spirit, rather than mind/spirit an extension of the body.       

Why you need to brag about dominating an effete mind, like Sauwelios, on the subject of Nietzsche, when both of you are Jews in spirit?

Why you tell me to ignore you, once, and then do not ignore me, like a female would?

Tell me to ignore you.
Go ahead and please me....tell me three times.
I'll do it with pleasure.

_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://satyr.canadian-forum.com/
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 15229
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Hedonism or This and that: Discourse on the Method of Rightly Conducting your Reason and Seeking Truth in the Sciences Sat Jul 05, 2014 9:11 am

There Will Be Blood wrote:


That aint very PC, are you aware of the BBW community? You remain utterly rhetorical. I think you should read your posts and see how they sound. Would you actually say that kind of stuff IRL and not look retarded in the meantime? Would your mama be proud investigating this material?
You know what's funny about this turd?
He claims to be a hedonist, avoiding need/suffering, and maximizing pleasure, then evoking the idea of a higher form of pleasure, but then, in the sexy-girl versus fat-chick example, he imagines the sexy girl to be appealing in every way, by placing his instinctive, base, automatic, projections, concerned with more than his pleasure as their end, above his hypothetical more sophisticated pleasures.

For this turd, a fat girl, who might give him sexual pleasure, of a lower grade, but hours of intellectual pleasure, pales by comparison...
So he is not maximizing pleasure at all.
He is an aesthete, who has made pleasure in the ideal his end.
Of course, this aesthetic pleasure is a product of evolution, and automatic responses, within which pleasure is but a part of, not an end of.    

For example...this moron finds the healthy, fertile markers aesthetically pleasing; markers indicating an end beyond the pleasure of the sexual act.
He finds a particular female form pleasing because it promises healthy, offspring, but he does not want that to ruin his pleasure, so he reverts to the animal level of awareness, where copulation is the only end they know of.

If he were truly maximizing his pleasure he would go for second best, maximizing his options and the odds of attaining them.
If he were honest, and not a hypocrite, the fat chick would have been a source of pleasures beyond the flesh....but because a fat girl indicated unfitness, regarding reproduction, his claim to have pleasure as an end, is a lie.

His mind thinks in contradiction to what his body desires.
His tiny brain wants to purify what his body desires.  
He's justified his base needs, and erased all base motives, responsibilities, considerations, to comfort himself in his naive romanticism.

But what do you expect from a moron who called Heidegger a "fool" and then posts, in other forums, his ideas about Objective Morality"?
He's a classic Jew.
Debauchery, selling to others what he does not buy himself.

_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://satyr.canadian-forum.com/
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 15229
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Hedonism or This and that: Discourse on the Method of Rightly Conducting your Reason and Seeking Truth in the Sciences Sat Jul 05, 2014 11:03 am

The specimen, in this case, is this bovine Mooooo.

Notice how he is disgusted by fat women, but he is against racism, or judging others according to appearances.
His ideals are contradicted by his genetic programming.

His attractions are a product of narcissism.
He wants a female to accentuate the inflated image he has of himself - expressed in his declarative domination of a womanly Sauwelios.  
No words can destroy that image of himself.
No matter how often he exposes himself as a coward and a hypocrite, the ideal, the self-image, pure and pristine, remains intact.
He seeks a woman to reflect back to him how he imagines himself, despite his performances proving the contrary.

_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://satyr.canadian-forum.com/
Mo
Lamb
avatar

Gender : Male Aries Posts : 276
Join date : 2013-02-02
Age : 34
Location : Northerly

PostSubject: Re: Hedonism or This and that: Discourse on the Method of Rightly Conducting your Reason and Seeking Truth in the Sciences Sat Jul 05, 2014 1:26 pm

Satyr wrote:
When a weakling, coward, hypocrite, like you, avoids weights, let's say...

I workout everyday Smile
It's pleasure.

Quote :
but where pleasure is a mechanism indicating a gratification of a need.

Yes, that’s why you are a hedonist. You hoist and absolutize need/suffering to a characterization of life as a whole---the sensation of existing in a world of chaos---and pleasure as its reduction (which is ordering). Your goal is creating/maintaining order, and thus it is pleasure. You are the hedonist, trading against a projection of yourself. It’s also why nothing you say is actually grounded in something I’ve said.

Quote :
You would therefore fuck a pretty dumb dullard, like yourself, rather than a highly intelligent, interesting, fat girl?
See why you are a decadent, hypocritical cunt?

You think max pleasure is in fucking 10 disgusting women, over 1 beautiful woman. That’s because you’re disgusting, as Mill said. You are trying to backtrack now by adding that the unattractive woman is actually attractive, for some non-superficial reason. Just as you tried to argue that the disgusting woman was better in bed.

Quote :
I would expect a true hedonist, with more than his balls in mind, to MAXIMIZE his pleasure by thinking of the female's mind....her character, personality.

Of course he would. Did you read the Mill passage?
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 15229
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Hedonism or This and that: Discourse on the Method of Rightly Conducting your Reason and Seeking Truth in the Sciences Sat Jul 05, 2014 2:15 pm

Some masochists have an orgasm while being whipped.
So, pain is also pleasure.

If you do not understand why stress produces that sensation, and all you have to offer my metaphysical grounding is quotes and personal anecdotes....then I think I am done with you.

Go back to feeding an emotional vampire your little poems and stories, while she thinks you her inferior and you secretly hold onto your emasculated ego's supremacy.

No need to ask me thrice, boy...
I just wanted to make you ask me to do what I will find great pleasure in doing myself.
Like when I make a woman tell me she wants me to fuck her.

Ta, Ta,

_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://satyr.canadian-forum.com/
Æon
Wyrm
avatar

Gender : Male Posts : 1900
Join date : 2014-03-25
Location : Outside

PostSubject: Re: Hedonism or This and that: Discourse on the Method of Rightly Conducting your Reason and Seeking Truth in the Sciences Sat Jul 05, 2014 2:34 pm

How did Jews go about transforming the u.s. economy into the world leading financial institution? They merged feminism into capitalism. Instead of only having males and men of households work, capitalists realized that they could take the woman out of her home and put her to work as well. Now instead of having 1 servant of the state, a slave, the national society automatically doubled its workforce.

How do retarded hedonists double their pleasure? Easy, they redefine pain as pleasurable. Even pain is pleasurable.

Like the capitalist, the result, the desired outcome, is automatically doubled, without any work involved. Immediate gratification. The modernist simply redefines pain, believes and puts faith that his pain is actually pleasure, and voila!!!!!

She is a true decadent hedonist.....she has just doubled her pleasure in life.

You begin to wonder what the modernist could feel as pain, after redefining it away completely???


Liberal newspeak, words hiding reality, twisting it, attempting to negate it, attempting to change it
And failing everytime, because words do not address the cause.
And words do not change reality.

These modernists will never understand this. Their philosophy, world view, metaphysics, their faith, disallows them. They will never question their premises, never learn, never venture outside their little bubble world. An eternal state of infancy, solipsism, and childhood.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Hedonism or This and that: Discourse on the Method of Rightly Conducting your Reason and Seeking Truth in the Sciences Sat Jul 05, 2014 2:40 pm

Mo wrote:
---the sensation of existing in a world of chaos---and pleasure as its reduction (which is ordering).

It seems that pleasure is the sensation that comes from the temporary absence of need, not the sensation of ordering, which would often be the product of need. Conversely, pain is not the sensation of disordering, but the sensation of need which is often the product of disordering.
Back to top Go down
Æon
Wyrm
avatar

Gender : Male Posts : 1900
Join date : 2014-03-25
Location : Outside

PostSubject: Re: Hedonism or This and that: Discourse on the Method of Rightly Conducting your Reason and Seeking Truth in the Sciences Sat Jul 05, 2014 2:47 pm

The modernist is a hedonist, admitting there is nothing in life "beyond pain and pleasure". Indicating a limited, stunted, retarded intellect and brain. A slave mentality and dialectic. These people are, genetically, slaves. They are slaves to passion. And even if introduced to anything "other than passion", they revert backward.

They redefine pain as pleasure.

Because there is no further outlet for their reasoning and rationalizing. They are forced into a corner. They have no "cause", no "purpose" in life. There is no reason for fucking a beautiful petite blondie over a fat slob. Whatever. Just because. Why does my dick get hard? Just because. Is it random? Who knows? Best not to think about it. Fucking a beautiful blondie is equal to a fleshlight. What's the difference, truly?

If it feels good, do it, maaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaan. Because that's what life's about, yeah?

The modernist, as a hedonist, is closer to an animal, while claiming to be "human". These humanists are least "human" of all. They are jews and christians, yes, their genetic offspring. They claim to value "humanity", but they don't really know what it means or why they follow their religions. They don't think about it.

The mark of a simpleton, a retard, is to boil everything down, simplify philosophy as much as possible, to pleasure and pain. It's like philosophy for a child, for kindergarten. Philosophy for a 5 year old. And that is the mental age of these morons. 5 years old.

When you confront them with simple counter arguments, and demonstrate that life occurs "outside pleasure", or in other words, there are consequences for actions, needs, pain, and pleasure, then they become mentally stressed. Moooooooooooooo, was focused on the orgasm only. He didn't look beyond it, or before it. He didn't look outside of it. He didn't realize that there events leading up to it, and reactive events after. He doesn't focus on the transition from one ejaculation to the next.

He doesn't realize that nature causes reproduction and new generations of children to be born. He disassociates this with sex. Liberalism. Why are children born? Just because? No....not just because. Magically, randomly. Sometimes sex results in children, sometimes not. It's a throw of the dice. Could it be the condoms? Could it be the birth control? Could it be social programming? Naaaaaaaaaaah, that's too "deep" maaaaaan. You're "over thinking" things.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 15229
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Hedonism or This and that: Discourse on the Method of Rightly Conducting your Reason and Seeking Truth in the Sciences Sat Jul 05, 2014 3:12 pm

Stuart. wrote:
Mo wrote:
---the sensation of existing in a world of chaos---and pleasure as its reduction (which is ordering).

It seems that pleasure is the sensation that comes from the temporary absence of need, not the sensation of ordering, which would often be the product of need. Conversely, pain is not the sensation of disordering, but the sensation of need which is often the product of disordering.
Wrong...

Libido = Desire
Desire = Libidinal Need for a object/objective
Desire is a produce of excess energies.

Existence = Need
Need = Lack

Need=suffering/Pain
Suffering/Pain = the end result of increasing need
Suffering is a product of deficient energies.

Want = a manufactured object/objective promising the alleviation of need and/or desire.
The object/objective of want is memetic.

I use the different terms to distinguish the different types.


There are two types of need, one due to lack, and one as a result of lack, of excess.

Difference between need for nutrition/water etc. and need for sex.
Sex evolved AFTER, later.
It is an adaptation.

The organism wants to preserve itself within the Flux.
It accumulates energies to do so...it is lacking.
It needs.
It self-maintains.

If, and only if, this is successful its methods suffice...it accumulates energies in excess of what it needs to preserve self.
These it directs towards growth, expansion.
Later, with the evolution of sex, as a method of self-replication  that utilizes these excessive energies, these become libidinal.
The excess energies directed towards reproduction...later from procreative they become, creative  - shift from genetic to memetic.  

The accumulated energies are in excess, ergo we have the idea of "overflowing"...a product of genetic superiority, cooperative synergy, and/or sheltering.  
One can survive without art and without sex...
If the excess energies are not expelled they are reabsorbed by the body...but in the meantime they produce stress.


-----------------

We are born ignorant, not omniscient.
Ergo we LACK knowledge, and understanding.

Knowledge is a negation if this lack.
Therefore, knowledge is a negation of the original state of ignorance, in the same way pleasure is the negation of the original state of need; need being how Flux feels to a self-organizing entity.
The opposite is not true, because we are not born with knowledge, except in the genetic form as automatic codes directing behavior and establishing a piori methods of gathering and organizing data.

_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://satyr.canadian-forum.com/
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Hedonism or This and that: Discourse on the Method of Rightly Conducting your Reason and Seeking Truth in the Sciences Sat Jul 05, 2014 3:48 pm

So life is an ordering, never a disordering, meaning saying that one becomes less ordered with decay, languish or trauma due to a decrease in ordering is a fallacy? But, it's correct to say that when decaying, languishing or receiving trauma one is becoming less; so less is being ordered - and immediately before death, one becomes less and less, without becoming more, until he ceases to be anything?
Back to top Go down
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 15229
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Hedonism or This and that: Discourse on the Method of Rightly Conducting your Reason and Seeking Truth in the Sciences Sat Jul 05, 2014 3:58 pm

Stuart. wrote:
So life is an ordering, never a disordering, meaning saying that one becomes less ordered with decay, languish or trauma due to a decrease in ordering is a fallacy?
Any time the energies requires to preserve self, to correct the attrition of time (flux) upon the organism, are not enough, the organism deteriorates, and feels this as suffering.
Life IS ordering (Becoming) in entropy (Flux).
It's struggle to preserve self, as long as possible, is felt as need.
Need can be thought of as the absence of an absolute, in this case Becoming but no Being; Will to Power, not Omnipotence; Will to knowledge, not Omniscience.

Strength is a measure of weakness; pleasure a degree of need/suffering; gnosis a level of ignorance; self a negation of otherness.

_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://satyr.canadian-forum.com/
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Hedonism or This and that: Discourse on the Method of Rightly Conducting your Reason and Seeking Truth in the Sciences Sat Jul 05, 2014 4:08 pm

Is it accurate to also characterize self as a measure of otherness?
Back to top Go down
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 15229
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Hedonism or This and that: Discourse on the Method of Rightly Conducting your Reason and Seeking Truth in the Sciences Sat Jul 05, 2014 6:28 pm

Stuart. wrote:
Is it accurate to also characterize self as a measure of otherness?
Since self is already in progress, as a separation form otherness, self-consciousness, or identity, the consciousness of this separateness is a negation of otherness:
I am what I am not.
You discover self, as another phenomenon, in the reflection through another.
You discover self via another, or otherness.

I am that which is not (other).

And if you are honest, and now a coward, like the bovine, you immediately realize that death is a return to otherness, as in swept away by the Flux, a return to the chaos, by fragmentation, disordering.
Ordering, life, returning, being returned to, the increasing entropy.

The norm, is Flux...ordering is the exception.
Entropy is the linear Fluidity of Flux, the Towards chaos...and life is its negation, a resistance.
So, life is a nullification of entropy, to a degree.
Therefore, the masculine spirit is in all living organisms.
Sexual reproduction, after all, is a result of testosterone. No testosterone no sexual urge.

The feminine is passive, the masculine is resistant.
These two elements participate in the sexual specialized types...resulting in masculine and feminine demeanor, with all their fit and unfit variants.      

Now, you might realize what the difference between masculine and feminine nihilism is.

Feminine nihilism = surrender to the norm, to the easy, consistence fragmentation of towards chaos - it's absolute end being RANDOMNESS/EMPTINESS/VOID.

Masculine nihilism = resistance to the norm, to the easy consistent fragmentation of towards chaos -it's absolute end being ORDER/BEING/GOD

And Hellenism?
BALANCE.
ΠΑΝ ΜΕΤΡΩΝ ΑΡΙΣΤΟΝ

Recall that in the Platonic psyche reason/Will/Passion are all participating in ego. Passion is not denied, or excluded....it is controlled.
The male dominates female, not by denying her her passions, but by controlling them, first in himself.

_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://satyr.canadian-forum.com/
Anfang

avatar

Gender : Male Virgo Posts : 2101
Join date : 2013-01-23
Age : 34
Location : CET

PostSubject: Re: Hedonism or This and that: Discourse on the Method of Rightly Conducting your Reason and Seeking Truth in the Sciences Sun Jul 06, 2014 5:19 am

If an animal is hungry then it will get up and find something to eat, it will usually not get up because of the pleasurable sensation of eating, not because it's looking forward to the taste, but because it is hungry. Now, maybe if the animal felt bored then it could develop a habit of eating for the distracting pleasure of tasting the food but even then the motivation would still be rooted in the suffering of boredom which it seeks release from.

A hedonist makes pleasure, the sensation of pleasure, to be the end of his/her actions. That's the defining trait which makes a hedonist into a hedonist. (Not the maximization of net pleasure - To fall for that would be to already buy into the hedonist framework in the first place.)
Hedonists are not like an animal - it requires to be a manimal.

The hedonist perceives a void in his/her mind, purpose and meaning are missing and so an end must be found to distract from that void. The sensation of pleasure becomes that end, its ideal to strive towards.
Hedonism is also attractive because it's a smart way of combining social status with ones' ideal - at least in modern society. It's because material wealth is one of the pillars of modern status. Moving towards the ideal of pleasure is a materially costly affair because the sensation of pleasure requires increasing strengths of stimulus, which is connected to increasing costs of material wealth.
The ideal of hedonism is in alignment with modern status.

Hedonism is a burning of wealth, of excess, a destruction of order. In this way, the modern hedonist has taken over the role of a devourer.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 15229
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Hedonism or This and that: Discourse on the Method of Rightly Conducting your Reason and Seeking Truth in the Sciences Sun Jul 06, 2014 3:40 pm

Read how the Moooo pats himself on the backside, over at ILP.
This is what a real schizophrenic narcissist thinks like...

Mooooooooooooo wrote:
Once having reduced your position to absurdity, there is no benefit for either of us in continuing. I'm leaving you with a few recommendations about where to go from here, and how to piece your arguments back together from the destruction I have wreaked upon them.


Schizophrenia and narcissism now produced by the system, to the point where someone has to really be fragmented, psychologically, and in love only with one piece, to stand out.

Sounds a lot like Purple Dragon/Aeon, no?

Mooooooooo wrote:
Thousands of years ago a great man, like ourselves, asked and set about to answer a basic question which set him apart from the rest of thinkers. What was Socrates' basic question? It was basically, How should I live? Or, What is the good life for man?
In any case, it's a bit silly to say that I've spent my time arguing for the existence of an external world. Why would I need to, really? It's there, and it will pimp-slap you in the face if you ever think it's not and happen to cross it. You are not the sole author of reality---and that's not something I've ever felt the need to argue for, nor should anyone. Although, when it comes to values and valuing, you're right... most people seem to think that in this arena, all of a sudden, one idea is as accurate as the next. It's as if they think other people weren't also flesh and blood---the same as them---such that for creatures such as us, there's really no bond between what's good for one and what's good for the next.


If he would tell us he's also a member of M.E.N.S.A., and that his I.Q. has been measured at 180, we would find it difficult to distinguish him amongst the uniform brilliance over at ILP.
The alumni: shit-Stain, ImbeSil, Saint-James who solved EVERYTHING, MAJ the brown cow who proves with her every post that women CAN think, et all...

A Jew boy is now a "great man," just like the Greek Socrates, destroying everything in his path.
He keeps it secret because he's "humble"...as you can see.
He tried to use the Socratic method on me, once....and all he did is expose himself.
We discovered he has a dream, like Martin Luther King, of a world with no races: a sea of mediocrity, and he lost in the cesspool; another turd adding to the stench.

Mooooooooo wrote:
What a shame because life is pretty amazing, and that's not an opinion, it's a fact that you ought to recognize staring you in the face, whenever you see something such as a sunrise, beautiful lake, big tits, a blowjob, or something such-like.
Charming fella.
A sunrise, a lake, is nature's blow job. My, how this bovine confuses pleasure with the mysterious, the profound with libidinal orgasmic explosions, the sublime for nervous convulsions...his head for his asshole.

Nature's wonder, the same as a woman's lips around his circumcised penis.

Let me practice:
Sunrise, flowers, cherries in a bowel, trees swaying in the noon-light; flickering leaves restlessly dancing, the waves crashing upon a Mediterranean coast, me peeing on Mooo's face under the moonlight, crystal shimmering drops on his cow-eyelids, his lips smacking on the saltiness, wanting to have it all, with a cherry on-top.
Mmmmmm, good to the last drop.
Sublime!  
It all feels good, so why not?
The meaning of life reduced down to a sensation, a feeling.

What woman would not be proud to own that beefcake - all bull, with a little bit of fruit.
A cherry begging to be popped, like a pregnant pimple.  

Shall we make a cow-pattie for dinner? 
 

Moooooooo wrote:
Christ Pav, they don't even feed you at church? At my old sinagogue we used to eat like wild boars. I swear, sometimes the service was even shortened for a feast.
A good Jew knows that life is wonderful.
It's in the Torah.
Jewish joie de vivre!!
Oive!
 Rolling Eyes 
Eat like a pig!!!
How kosher.
The meaning of life.

Next, the life-haters will convince us that they actually love life, rather than escaping it with self-numbing constructs, like objective morality, or food, or pleasure as an end.
The Jews will become Greeks.
Why not?
It feels good saying it, and that pleasing feeling is our end.

Bovines is funny.

_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://satyr.canadian-forum.com/
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 15229
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Hedonism or This and that: Discourse on the Method of Rightly Conducting your Reason and Seeking Truth in the Sciences Sun Jul 06, 2014 7:14 pm

This piggy is too tasty to let go of....
not yet....not yet little piggy.

Mooooooo wrote:
I workout everyday Smile
It's pleasure.
A careless show of bravado by a coward.
He takes the endorphin rush, and uses it to claim that he is enjoying stressing his body.

Perhaps the bovine is using the girly weights, or simply flexing his Gluttious Maximus on a bench, calling it a workout.
Stroking your penis in the showers is not a workout, boy.

From what I know, training seriously, should make you vomit, not get "just" yucky sweaty.

This...

...not a workout.

This...

...not a workout.

The douche-bag should tell us how facing death makes him feel happy, to build up that image he so desperately wants to CULTIVATE. Maybe your mentor is not training you hard enough, turd.
Let her write a response for you.    

Moooooooo wrote:
One person can say that life is suffering/pain, and that pleasure is just the reduction in degree of suffering/pain. Another person can say that life is health/pleasure, and that pain is just the reduction in degree of health/pleasure. The difference is just an emotional/psychological one, not a conceptual one.
And using the bovine logic, Jew is also Greek, and pain is pleasure, and morality is hedonism, and asceticism is hedonism...and if you say otherwise there is a psychological reason...not an objective one.

For this retard saying life is an exception and it requires great effort, struggle to maintain itself, is the same as saying death is an exception and it takes great effort to maintain itself.
Everything is reversible for the Nihilist, because the world is not referred to...but only the psyche, the feelings, the noumenon, the abstraction...corrupted by fear, the coward must flip it all on its head.

_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://satyr.canadian-forum.com/
Æon
Wyrm
avatar

Gender : Male Posts : 1900
Join date : 2014-03-25
Location : Outside

PostSubject: Re: Hedonism or This and that: Discourse on the Method of Rightly Conducting your Reason and Seeking Truth in the Sciences Sun Jul 06, 2014 8:33 pm

Satyr wrote:
Schizophrenia and narcissism now produced by the system, to the point where someone has to really be fragmented, psychologically, and in love only with one piece, to stand out.

Sounds a lot like Purple Dragon/Aeon, no?
No, loser, but keep swinging and pressing buttons. You may get one right someday.

I'm not an attention seeker. If I was then I'd have a lot of it. When I was younger, I resented attention from all but a few closest family, friends, and strangers.

At one point I even cut my own hair as a boy because strangers approached me and complimented me on it too frequently. I have always been attention avoidant.

But nice try anyway....
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Lyssa
Har Har Harr
avatar

Gender : Female Posts : 9035
Join date : 2012-03-01
Location : The Cockpit

PostSubject: Re: Hedonism or This and that: Discourse on the Method of Rightly Conducting your Reason and Seeking Truth in the Sciences Mon Jul 07, 2014 6:08 pm

A Hypocrite like this dumb duck is one who asks questions AS IFF they haven't already been addressed... AS IFFF he were making a new point that wasn't already addressed... AS IFFFF repeating the same over would somehow make him look more cleverer and "still in the fight".

Mo is a COWARDLY FRAUD.

I offer my replies in the form of quotes I've ALREADY said on this thread to let all the ones who "gathered around him" know he was already beaten, and you can't engage with a sugarcane that has already gone through the machine and sapped OUT of its content... AS IFFFFFFF there was still some "substance" left. I'm not Hypocritical enough to pretend such...


Hypocrite wrote:
1. You said that a hedonist accounts for only short-term pleasure (5 mins, where 5 years away is irrelevant). Now apparently you recognize that hedonists go to the dentist.

Lyssa wrote:
"a hedonist would value his health in order to be able to enjoy the pleasurable life, and that reduction to sensationalism makes the hedonist a decadent to the master."

Epicurus wrote:
"I am thrilled with pleasure in the body, when I live on bread and water, and I spit upon luxurious pleasures not for their own sake, but because of the inconveniences that follow them."


Hypocrite wrote:
2. You said that a hedonist doesn’t care what kind of cow he fucks, or what crap he eats. Does fucking a cow give you the pleasure that fucking a beautiful woman does? Does eating a shit sandwich give you the pleasure that a tuna nicoise would?

Lyssa wrote:
"it doesn't matter if its 5 mins. or 5 years, as long as, evaluating and weighing the consequences of his actions in terms of pleasure/pain is reduction of life to sensation... and taking it as the sole ends makes him a nihilist as he lives within this sheltered reality informed by avoidance of pain. This makes him a decadent in the eyes of the master."

Quote :
3. You think a hedonist will eat/fuck indiscriminately until reality kills him. As if overindulgence doesn’t cause pain…


Lyssa wrote:
"If the pursuit of pleasure is the only end, then he would continue indulging indiscriminately until reality makes him aware of the cost of his indiscrimination.
And *because* he discriminates in terms of pleasure/pain, and wills to maximize his pleasure, whether that pleasure is pursued in terms of power, beauty, excellence, f---ing cows, he continues to live in *his* 'discriminated' reality that is least painful and brings him the sensation of maximum pleasure, 5 mins. or 5 years doesn't matter. This makes him a decadent."


Quote :
4. You said that hedonism would have painful repercussions. What? –A hedonist is someone who, as well as maximizeing pleasure, also MINIMIZES PAIN---since those are the same thing.

Lyssa wrote:

"A hedonist who thinks in terms of pleasure alone and reduces it all to pleasure cannot make value-judgements on par with reality; his preservation and self-maintenance only and can only exist within a bubble.
Epicurus had a 'Garden'.
Go figure.
...even your idiotic example goes to show that left on its own, without care, entropy occurs causing decay to the teeth, and it costs [there is an unpleasantness] to go to the dentist for health-maintenance. Life is rooted in this costly need to resist disorder."


Quote :
5. You think that a hedonist is a decadent, but you only think that because your own pleasures are decadent ones, and a hedonist must be like you.

Lyssa wrote:

"Honour for pleasure's sake, Pride for pleasure's sake, Principle for pleasure's sake defeats the very purpose of evaluating higher/lower kinds of living.
our own 'dumb f---'.
...saying, 'step inside of yourself' makes you look a hypocrite."


Quote :
6. You think a hedonist is a slave to his sensations, as if that’s a good characterization of the hedonism of Epicurus, or any other hedonist.

Lyssa wrote:

"Ethical hedonism is the view that our fundamental moral obligation is to maximize pleasure or happiness. Ethical hedonism is most associated with the ancient Greek philosopher Epicurus (342-270 BCE.) who taught that our life's goal should be to minimize pain and maximize pleasure. In fact, all of our actions should have that aim:

"We recognize pleasure as the first good innate in us, and from pleasure we begin every act of choice and avoidance, and to pleasure we return again, using the feeling as the standard by which we judge every good."
[Epicurus, Letter to Menoeceus]"


Quote :
7. You think it’s a static platonic mind that thinks in terms of absolutes, while you absolutize suffering/need. (To absolutize a concept is to stretch it over reality as a whole, and to make its contrasting concepts only degrees of it).

Lyssa wrote:

"In other words, you cannot prove Entropy is not the norm of the universe, and Order doesn't cost.
In other words, life is not rooted in suffering because I want it or want to define it that way, but because that is a scientific fact.
Absolutism, you dumb duck, is positing Life SHOULD only be pleasurable [contra reality], which is different from the master-value that says Life IS rooted in suffering because it costs to maintain order which is what reality is."

Quote :
8. You think that “life is rooted in pain”, and that pleasure is just some degree of pain, and so apparently you think that life is rooted in pleasure by degrees---because you call that pain. You are the hedonist. --Obviously.

Lyssa wrote:

"You dumb duck, if this were just a matter of flipping between heads and tails, and word changing like saying light is the absence of darkness and dark being the absence of light amounting to the same, then this whole argument would only be a childish ego issue.
You dumb duck, its not what I like to phrase.
If you can agree that the world is chaos, and entropy is the norm, and our life is an exception, a rarity, then life is an ordering in a world that IS disorder.
And any children's physics book is enough to tell you every order, every maintenance is a cost, is maintained at a price to pay. This is a pain, an expenditure that needs to be constantly replenished if it is to maintain itself.
You dumb duck, if I am only playing childish games and not you who's committing reductionism and word-swapping like reality were a matter of "whatever" feels best, Prove to me entropy is not the norm of the universe."


Quote :
9. You think I’m a reductionist. Apparently you didn’t read my OP.

Lyssa wrote:

"You are retarding evolution, and that makes you a nihilist.

There are degrees of decadence "among" hedonists and hedonism itself is a decadence "among" the masters, and the master himself may count as a decadence among the overmen... and they among the over-overmen... , saying, hedonism and master-morality is the same thing [is you]...levelling everything into a reduction, to which your own critique of reductionism would apply to you. And that kind of meaninglessness again makes you a nihilist.
Is this what you want to do to save face?"


Quote :
You are playing ego games because you refuse to look at the person (or idea) in favour of your simplistic caricature, which is easier for you to abuse and feel like you can lord over. And you are protected from reality because you can plug your ears, look at the ground, and repeat your simplistic and ignorant caricature.

Lyssa wrote:

"I accept your submission, unless you can prove Entropy is not the universal norm and Order doesn't cost."


Quote :
There are all kinds of hierarchies, which reflect different skills, abilities, values, etc. I would never respect a hierarchy that put me below any poster on this forum. That would be a denial of reality.

Lyssa wrote:

"Your own ignorance is appalling, you might as well call everybody you cant comprehend an idiot and enjoy your eargasm."

_________________
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

"ἐδιζησάμην ἐμεωυτόν." [Heraclitus]

"All that exists is just and unjust and equally justified in both." [Aeschylus, Prometheus]

"The history of everyday is constituted by our habits. ... How have you lived today?" [N.]

*Become clean, my friends.*


Last edited by Lyssa on Sun Mar 15, 2015 4:07 am; edited 2 times in total
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://ow.ly/RLQvm
Lyssa
Har Har Harr
avatar

Gender : Female Posts : 9035
Join date : 2012-03-01
Location : The Cockpit

PostSubject: Re: Hedonism or This and that: Discourse on the Method of Rightly Conducting your Reason and Seeking Truth in the Sciences Mon Jul 07, 2014 6:10 pm

Ignorant Coward wrote:
You think a hedonist is a slave to his sensations, as if that’s a good characterization of the hedonism of Epicurus, or any other hedonist.


Epicurus wrote:
"We begin every act of choice and avoidance from pleasure, and it is to pleasure that we return using our experience of pleasure as the criterion of every good thing."


The Fraud Coward quotes Mill in a selective passage, but what does Mill go on to say;

Mill wrote:
"If I am asked what I mean by difference of quality in pleasures, or what makes one pleasure more valuable than another, merely as a pleasure, except its being greater in amount, there is but one possible answer.

Of two pleasures, if there be one to which all or almost all who have experience of both give a decided preference, irrespective of any feeling of moral obligation to prefer it, that is the more desirable pleasure. If one of the two is, by those who are competently acquainted with both, placed so far above the other that they prefer it, even though knowing it to be attended with a greater amount of discontent, and would not resign it for any quantity of the other pleasure which their nature is capable of, we are justified in ascribing to the preferred enjoyment a superiority in quality so far outweighing quantity as to render it, in comparison, of small account." [Utilitarianism]

Pleasure is decided by the majority.
According to Mill, the ultimate goal is not individual but rather general happiness. Only that which is also pleasant for others is right for the individual. Moral standard is general happiness. The very point of Mill's utilitarianism is not as much the individual pleasure of a doer, but rather the maximum yield of the pleasure itself;

Mill wrote:
""The only proof capable of being given that an object is visible, is that people actually see it. The only proof that a sound is audible, is that people hear it; and so of the other sources of our experience. In like manner, I apprehend, the sole evidence it is possible to produce that anything is desirable, is that people do actually desire it. If the end which the utilitarian doctrine proposes to itself were not, in theory and in practice, acknowledged to be an end, nothing could ever convince any person that it was so. No reason can be given why the general happiness is desirable, except that each person, so far as he believes it to be attainable, desires his own happiness. This, however, being a fact, we have not only all the proof which the case admits of, but all which it is possible to require, that happiness is a good, that each person's happiness is a good to that person, and the general happiness, therefore, a good to the aggregate of all persons. Happiness has made out its title as one of the ends of conduct, and consequently one of the criteria of morality.
...And consequently, the utilitarian standard, while it tolerates and approves those other acquired desires, up to the point beyond which they would be more injurious to the general happiness than promotive of it, enjoins and requires the cultivation of the love of virtue up to the greatest strength possible, as being above all things important to the general happiness.
... happiness is the sole end of human action, and the promotion of it the test by which to judge of all human conduct; from whence it necessarily follows that it must be the criterion of morality, since a part is included in the whole." [Mill, On Virtue and Happiness]

Mill wrote:
"The liberty of the individual must be thus far limited; he must not make himself nuissance to other people."

And the Ignorant Coward doesn't see or quote how Mill's minimization of pain is such a sheltered self-stunting and only possible in a bubble, in a garden as I've been arguing... and what makes Hedonists such Decadents.

The Hypocrite Coward condescendingly remarked at Satyr to "atleast read Bentham", or being "familiar with him" if one is to talk of "Hedonism"..., when its Bentham who defined pleasure in terms of Quantity;

Quote :
"Bentham holds that the only standard of valuation of pleasure is quantitative. But quantity takes different forms. It has seven dimensions of value, viz., (i) intensity, (ii) duration, (iii) proximity, (iv) certainty, (v) purity (freedom from pain), (vi) fecundity (fruitfulness), and (vii) extent i.e., the number of persons affected.

One pleasure is more intense than another. Of pleasures otherwise equal, the more intense pleasure is preferable to a less intense pleasure. One pleasure is more durable than another. Of pleasures otherwise equal, the more durable pleasure is preferable to a less durable pleasure.

A proximate pleasure is preferable to a remote pleasure.
A certain pleasure is preferable to an uncertain pleasure.

A pleasure is pure when it is free from pain; and it is impure when it is mixed with pain. A pure pleasure is preferable to an impure pleasure.

A pleasure is said to have fecundity when it gives rise to a number of other pleasure. A fecund pleasure is preferable to a barren pleasure which does not give rise to other pleasure. A pleasure may be enjoyed by a small number of persons or a large number of persons!

A pleasure of greater extent is preferable to one of less extent. A pleasure enjoyed by a large number of persons is preferable to pleasure enjoyed by a small number of persons.

These are intensity, duration, proximity or propinquity, certainty, purity, fecundity, and extent of pleasures."

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]



Quote :
"According to Bentham, actions which are morally right tend to produce the greatest possible amount of pleasure and the least possible amount of pain, while actions which are morally wrong tend to produce either a lesser amount of pleasure or a greater amount of pain than other actions which could be performed. The total amount of pleasure or pain which is produced by an action may depend on the total amount of pleasure or pain which is experienced by all individuals whose interest is affected by the action."

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]


It is in terms of Quantitative value of Pleasure, Bentham made the hedonistic reduction,

Quote :
"[T]he value which they possess, is exactly in proportion to the pleasure they yield (...) Prejudice apart, the game of push-pin is of equal value with the arts and sciences of music and poetry. If the game of push-pin furnish more pleasure, it is more valuable than either. Everybody can play at push-pin: poetry and music are relished only by a few." [Bentham]

Mill believed that poetry and music are better (because they are more pleasant for those who enjoy them) while Bentham considered that push-pin is better (because more people have access to it).

What he really says is that, if the fine arts(music, poetry, etc.) have greater value for society, it is probably not so much because of the pleasure they give (to the elite few who appreciate them) as because of the pain they prevent (for the many who do not). They have (historically) prevented much pain for society by turning the activity of its most powerful and energetic members away from the harmful channels that it would otherwise have gone into (mainly war). Here is his argument:

"If poetry and music deserve to be preferred before a game of push-pin, it must be because they are calculated to gratify those individuals who are most difficult to be pleased (...) They compete with, and occupy the place of, those mischievous and dangerous passions and employments, to which want of occupation and ennui give birth (...) It is to the cultivation of the arts and sciences, that we must in great measure ascribe the existence of that party which is now opposed to war: it has received its birth amid the occupation and pleasures furnished by the fine arts. These arts, so to speak, have enrolled under their peaceful banners that army of idlers which would have otherwise possessed no amusement but in the hazardous and bloody game of war." [Bentham, Jeremy, The Rationale, book III, ch. I. Emphasis added.]


That is from the most Bentham-sympathetic/apologetic site: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]


In other words, to the Hedonist, the pleasure of fine arts is the same as sports that the herd get to enjoy, because of the pain it prevents the rare from unleashing themselves on the herd.

Art = Pleasure = Protection of the Herd


And this Hypocrite Coward accuses others of Reductionism for pointing out how Hedonism is a Decadence that prostitutes values and skews reality.

This Hypocrite Ignorant Coward continues to argue Hedonism and Master-value is the Same while claiming he believes in hierarchy, while calling the other an idiot and dumb f--- for not reading Bentham, while accusing the other of creating strawman, while accusing the other of being a Nihilist...

Maybe "step inside yourself" - the Mantra of this Hypocrite Ignorant egoTistical Coward is the subconscious advocacy of going back to one's womb, a retrogression, of never taking birth, life as painful, and pleasure as the only good, hiding the life-numbed Nihilist he is...

This Hypocrite Ignorant egoTistical Cowardly FRAUD has stated on this very forum in his own words Heidegger is an idiot, in the same context under discussion, and when quoted by Satyr, brushes it off as garbage like it had nothing to do with him, when his post is present here for all to see.

This Hypocrite Ignorant egoTistical Cowardly Fraudulent NO-BALLS-ALL-pea-NUT-for-GLORY says, "I would never respect a hierarchy that put me below any poster on this forum. That would be a denial of reality." When he has already decided the outcome, when he has already decided he should not be below any poster here, - such an outcome would not be respected by him, then he is declaring that he is arguing from the pov of saving-face-only,,,, and not from any intellectual exploration...
while he continues to accuse the other of playing childish ego games.
This PEA-cock when asked to present his views, accused Satyr of begging for attention.
A decadent hedonist shelters himself in that which gives him pleasure. The dumb duck protecting himself in the pleasure of an already decided outcome, lives in a skewed reality, and that makes him a Decadent, below MY Master-value. Way way down...

He can hang on to his hat.

_________________
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

"ἐδιζησάμην ἐμεωυτόν." [Heraclitus]

"All that exists is just and unjust and equally justified in both." [Aeschylus, Prometheus]

"The history of everyday is constituted by our habits. ... How have you lived today?" [N.]

*Become clean, my friends.*


Last edited by Lyssa on Mon Jul 07, 2014 10:40 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://ow.ly/RLQvm
Lyssa
Har Har Harr
avatar

Gender : Female Posts : 9035
Join date : 2012-03-01
Location : The Cockpit

PostSubject: Re: Hedonism or This and that: Discourse on the Method of Rightly Conducting your Reason and Seeking Truth in the Sciences Mon Jul 07, 2014 6:11 pm

LaughingMan wrote:
Lyssa wrote:
LaughingMan wrote:
Human beings are just another animal.

I am surprised how everybody here is opposed to something like hedonism.

Humans are not "just" animals, not "only" animals... maybe you are?



Quote :
It's like everybody here is trying to make a moral valuation on the subject.

On this forum that's way too funny.

Moral valuation is how you read assessment of self-stunting to the state of a cud-chewing cow content to sleep in the sun? It is a master moralism then.

Ah, yes, you're one of those following a Christian humanist metanarrative where human beings are the chosen species that are special and unique here on earth.  That's cute.

Assumption is the mother of all.....

Just because I said Humans are not ONLY animals, doesnt IMMEDIATELY mean I think animals are nothing; I said, hedonistic decadence makes humans just as good as animals. Those who live for pleasure alone and as their only end, are like swines and cud-chewing cattle.

To the Noble Master, Humans are not "just another" animal; they are part animal, but also sovereign.

Its the filthy Xt. who thinks animals are despicable and Man is separate from it because they fear the passions and lack the power to affirm.


Quote :
All we are is a more evolved primate. [Another slightly smarter animal]  That's it.  Deal with it......

Intelligence is not just another advantage; consciousness is not just quantity separating, but also quality distancing.

Only rank-affirmations.

_________________
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

"ἐδιζησάμην ἐμεωυτόν." [Heraclitus]

"All that exists is just and unjust and equally justified in both." [Aeschylus, Prometheus]

"The history of everyday is constituted by our habits. ... How have you lived today?" [N.]

*Become clean, my friends.*
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://ow.ly/RLQvm
Lyssa
Har Har Harr
avatar

Gender : Female Posts : 9035
Join date : 2012-03-01
Location : The Cockpit

PostSubject: Re: Hedonism or This and that: Discourse on the Method of Rightly Conducting your Reason and Seeking Truth in the Sciences Mon Jul 07, 2014 6:12 pm

Æon wrote:
Satyr wrote:
Schizophrenia and narcissism now produced by the system, to the point where someone has to really be fragmented, psychologically, and in love only with one piece, to stand out.

Sounds a lot like Purple Dragon/Aeon, no?

No, loser, but keep swinging and pressing buttons.  You may get one right someday.

I'm not an attention seeker.


Shut Up Neon.





_________________
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

"ἐδιζησάμην ἐμεωυτόν." [Heraclitus]

"All that exists is just and unjust and equally justified in both." [Aeschylus, Prometheus]

"The history of everyday is constituted by our habits. ... How have you lived today?" [N.]

*Become clean, my friends.*
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://ow.ly/RLQvm
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 15229
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Hedonism or This and that: Discourse on the Method of Rightly Conducting your Reason and Seeking Truth in the Sciences Mon Jul 07, 2014 9:28 pm

Lyssa wrote:



The Hypocrite Coward condescendingly remarked at Satyr to "atleast read Bentham", or being "familiar with him" if one is to talk of "Hedonism"..., when its Bentham who defined pleasure in terms of Quantity;
Interesting how we are back to something I've face for years.
Some douche-bag, with a catalog of book references, wanting to debate what others have said about reality, rather than debate about reality.
Because I need to know what Bentham said to have an opinion about what hedonism is.

A warning to Lyssa...
Knowing the specimen's psychology, if you insult him some more he might fall deeply in lust with you.

_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://satyr.canadian-forum.com/
Mo
Lamb
avatar

Gender : Male Aries Posts : 276
Join date : 2013-02-02
Age : 34
Location : Northerly

PostSubject: Re: Hedonism or This and that: Discourse on the Method of Rightly Conducting your Reason and Seeking Truth in the Sciences Mon Jul 07, 2014 11:32 pm

Lyssa wrote:
And this Hypocrite Coward accuses others of Reductionism for pointing out how Hedonism is a Decadence that prostitutes values and skews reality.

No. You are a reductionist if you reduce values to degree of need/suffering (aka pain). ---That’s also hedonism. You are tirading against a projection of yourself.

Quote :
This Hypocrite Ignorant Coward continues to argue Hedonism and Master-value is the Same

Never once did I say that.

Are you just thinking of the labels (ignorant, hypocrite, coward) that would hurt yourself most, and then passing them off to me? They don't apply to me.

Lyssa wrote:
Mo wrote:
1. You said that a hedonist accounts for only short-term pleasure (5 mins, where 5 years away is irrelevant). Now apparently you recognize that hedonists go to the dentist.
"a hedonist would value his health in order to be able to enjoy the pleasurable life, and that reduction to sensationalism makes the hedonist a decadent to the master."

What you said has no relevance to the criticism. My point is that a hedonist is not short-sighted to the next 5 minutes of his life. What you responded with has nothing to do with anything I’ve said. And the same thing happens for every one of those points. What is wrong with you?

Read it:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

And btw, tell me, is Epicurus a hedonist and an ascetic at the same time?

- - -

You write like some cracked-out bag-lady shrieking at the voices in your head. Scream, wave your arms, and act like you think a Master does... You haven't been "let in" because you trampled whatever respect I had for you.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 15229
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Hedonism or This and that: Discourse on the Method of Rightly Conducting your Reason and Seeking Truth in the Sciences Tue Jul 08, 2014 7:56 am

Moooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo wrote:


No. You are a reductionist if you reduce values to degree of need/suffering (aka pain). ---That’s also hedonism. You are tirading against a projection of yourself.
No turd....pain is not value.
Value is what resists entropy - what is more timeless.

We do not even say suffering is an end, like you do about pleasure.
Suffering is no end, and neither is pleasure ...both are interpretations, how the brain interprets variation of need.
And need is no end. need is the sensation of entropy upon an organism, a self-organizing entity - a life-form.
You, are a moron. a desperate, naive, romantic, decadent piece of shit.

Suffering/Pleasure are two extremes of what the organism experiences as need, which is its interaction with a dynamic world, as ordering/becoming experiencing the Flux.
The Flux, being the world, which does not give a shit about your pleasures and pains.

Pleasure, douche-bag, is your ideal...
The concept you used to fill in the absence of the absolute.

Others put there the concepts of God, Humanity, Power etc....and make them their end.
The absence lends itself to any ideal.
And that you made pleasure your end, rather than God, for example, is what exposes you as an individual.
It reveals your psychology.   

Moooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo wrote:
You write like some cracked-out bag-lady shrieking at the voices in your head. Scream, wave your arms, and act like you think a Master does... You haven't been "let in" because you trampled whatever respect I had for you.
I'm sure the loss is big.
She lost an opportunity to find pleasure in you.
But, you have your princess of hedonism, who is cynical about your objective morality but will never tell you - she is maximizing her own pleasures.

Maximizing: not postponing the given for the hypothetical.
Only in the mind of a naive imbecile would maximizing mean holding off for the best...not knowing if it will come, or if it is the best you can do.

Bentham wrote:
A proximate pleasure is preferable to a remote pleasure.
A certain pleasure is preferable to an uncertain pleasure.
You've read him, no?
You should be fucking big ugly chicks, because they are the easiest, but you, being a romantic idealist, have convinced yourself that you deserve better, and that this 'better" will be worth it.

Now run along and tell the world you "utterly destroyed and dominated Lyssa" to preserve that image you are cultivating.

_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://satyr.canadian-forum.com/
Lyssa
Har Har Harr
avatar

Gender : Female Posts : 9035
Join date : 2012-03-01
Location : The Cockpit

PostSubject: Re: Hedonism or This and that: Discourse on the Method of Rightly Conducting your Reason and Seeking Truth in the Sciences Thu Jul 10, 2014 12:49 pm

Hypocrite wrote:
Lyssa wrote:
And this Hypocrite Coward accuses others of Reductionism for pointing out how Hedonism is a Decadence that prostitutes values and skews reality.

No. You are a reductionist if you reduce values to degree of need/suffering (aka pain). ---That’s also hedonism. You are tirading against a projection of yourself.


Lyssa wrote:

"In other words, you cannot prove Entropy is not the norm of the universe, and Order doesn't cost.

In other words, life is not rooted in suffering because I want it or want to define it that way, but because that is a scientific fact.

Absolutism, you dumb duck, is positing Life SHOULD only be pleasurable [contra reality], which is different from the master-value that says Life IS rooted in suffering because it costs to maintain order which is what reality is.
Unless you can prove Entropy is not the norm and Order doesn't cost,,, I will say, I am not the one reducing things to suffering... and therefore defining values in degrees of it.
This is plain bottoms-up thinking.*

Because you are a hedonist, you believe everybody else like you, infers reality according to whatever picture pleases them.
That is you reduced to your ignorance."


*Bottom-up Thinking:

Satyr wrote:
"Bottom-Up - begins with sensual stimuli, the apparent, the perceived, finds patterns in it and with this extrapolates larger rules and predicts future occurrences.

Top-Down - begins with a conclusion, the invisible, the unperceived, and then tries to incorporate the perceived within its premises....or tries to justify the projected with the perceived .
If and when it fails it does not discard the presumed, it simply dismisses the perceived as illusions or as too complex or too inconclusive to be taken into consideration, postponing judgment indefinitely."

vs.

Mo's Just-Because Secular Humanism wrote:

"look at flesh and blood (what we all have in common); this is biological/physiological data. What is good for one human being (at the deepest level) is good for any other human being, because we are the same kind of organism and the same principles and information gained applies. We ought not to get caught up at a superficial level--the level of culture--when 'good' and 'bad' go far deeper than that."

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

lol! lol!


Hypocrite wrote:


Quote :
This Hypocrite Ignorant Coward continues to argue Hedonism and Master-value is the Same

Never once did I say that.


Its true, never Once did you say that, but atleast Twice;


Liar wrote:

"One person can say that life is suffering/pain, and that pleasure is just the reduction in degree of suffering/pain. Another person can say that life is health/pleasure, and that pain is just the reduction in degree of health/pleasure. The difference is just an emotional/psychological one, not a conceptual one."


"Your “master value” is just code for “hellenic asceticism” ---which, Epicurus as an example, is hedonism."



Hypocrite wrote:
Are you just thinking of the labels (ignorant, hypocrite, coward) that would hurt yourself most , and then passing them off to me? They don't apply to me.

Indeed, if I were being dishonest and arguing simply to save face, those would be the words that would hurt myself, and that would hurt anybody with integrity.

That it doesn't to you is only proof of how well it applies to you.

Hypocrite wrote:

Lyssa wrote:
Mo wrote:
1. You said that a hedonist accounts for only short-term pleasure (5 mins, where 5 years away is irrelevant). Now apparently you recognize that hedonists go to the dentist.
"a hedonist would value his health in order to be able to enjoy the pleasurable life, and that reduction to sensationalism makes the hedonist a decadent to the master."

What you said has no relevance to the criticism. My point is that a hedonist is not short-sighted to the next 5 minutes of his life. What you responded with has nothing to do with anything I’ve said.


Lyssa wrote:

"a hedonist would value his health in order to be able to enjoy the pleasurable life, and that reduction to sensationalism makes the hedonist a decadent to the master."

Epicurus wrote:

"I am thrilled with pleasure in the body, when I live on bread and water, and I spit upon luxurious pleasures not for their own sake, but because of the inconveniences that follow them."



Hypocrite wrote:
And the same thing happens for every one of those points. What is wrong with you?

Mo wrote:

"I'm a master psychologizer, like Nietzsche."


Didn't you call me an egoist? Why aren't you content with your answer as to what is wrong with me?
Does your conscience not give you rest in such a fraudulent dismissal of me?

Can you back up your own words that you are a Master Psychologizer and present a clear diagnosis of what is wrong with me?

And what is wrong with Satyr? Or is Satyr already explained away as a dumb f---, and fighting wind-mills, ignorant idiot, etc.?

Can you also perform a self-diagnosis on why you pretend not to understand, why you evade, why you lie? Because you have.

If you cant stand up to your own words you are a Master Psychologizer, that would add to your Lie Count. And my Kill Count.



Liar wrote:

And btw, tell me, is Epicurus a hedonist and an ascetic at the same time?

Is this your way of confessing your ignorance, that you have no clue of either hedonism or what epicurus said?

Lyssa wrote:

"The Master's asceticism is about cultivating 'indifference' which does not mean living carelessly, but a steadfastness of undisturbed inner order manifesting as calm - it is being indifferent to fate to be able to love and affirm life for what it IS!

Hedonistic asceticism whether it is epicurean, delighting in 'discrimination' and 'reasoning' that shuts off life with the dictum the beautiful life in the pleasant garden is the only good, is the only highest life, or the Xt. asceticism that has to kill the body to be able to "enjoy life" are both caricatures of life, are both nihilisms, are both decadent, are both inferior to the master

Epicurus wrote:
"The beginning and the root of all good is the pleasure of the stomach; even wisdom and culture must be referred to this."

Even Epicurus has to acknowledge even the highest culture is rooted in NEED, in satiation of hunger, lack.

But what does Epicurus do? He concludes,

Epicurus wrote:
"Thanks be to blessed Nature because she has made what is necessary easy to supply[b], and [b]what is not easy unnecessary."

Life reduced to satiating the stomach the easiest way, and everything else as unnecessary pain; life reduced to the sensation of pleasure alone as the only good...
If this is the same as Master-value as you have been claiming, then you continue to remain a Cowardly Hypocrite.



- - -

Ignorant wrote:
You write like some cracked-out bag-lady shrieking at the voices in your head. Scream, wave your arms, and act like you think a Master does...

Really? Its always "hysteria when you are near" [Def Leppard]...

In other news, I was showing you what your hedonism is.

Bright red colours, Big sized words - the sensation of it is what registers in your brain, and not the content, when it is you who had said to me,

"Being barbaric, direct, and blunt are good things."


You are moved by sensation of pain to psychojacket me as shrieking lady, voices in my head, this, that...

If you weren't a decadent hedonist, you'd notice "ignorant, coward, fraud, hypocrite, pea-Nut, PEA-cock, liar" are all cold, calm value-assertions backed up with susbstance and not redundant, empty name-callings.
All it takes is a bright colour and an increased font to expose how your evaluations are a product of your hedonism.

You are a Decadent, and way below me.


Pathetic Decadent wrote:
you trampled whatever respect I had for you.

Yea? Maybe you are just scared to let me in. You know I would f--- your brains out.

That's what good people do. They crush your false ego, show you your flaws, and they benefit you...

You should have told me you couldn't handle my directness and bluntness. I would have spared you.

You should have not accused Satyr of needing attention when he challenged and invited you to present your point, not accused him of strawmen or fighting with windmills or being a dumb f---, when you should have come back after really growing some. But nevermind all that...
You are a respect-giver? Joke. The way you are dishonest and tell lies to yourself, tells me you don't even respect yourself, Decadent.

Invitations are esp. needed only by Vampires.
I never denied being a Monster, even more monstrous than Satyr who is a gentleman, just not a Vampire... isn't that film more apt between you and that vampire phoneutria that called me a baboon but itself with an intelligence lower than a baboon it couldn't differentiate between realistic paintings (techniques of art as good as real) and realism paintings (depictions of holohoax, and such political incorrectness that would have one jailed today)?

You'll agree, its a truism. You'd display common sense to yourself if you gave it to It.


Me. Atleast I was not a coward who spoke things about others behind their back, like you did with that under-baboon about my rabidity and what not.

Atleast I was not that hypocrite who asked me if I was worthy of trust for sharing his pic., AS IFFF, it wasn't HE who freely shared his pics. all over ILP and even started the pic. thread, and now pretending so coy, as though, I was going to expose something that wasn't already. I never tried to exploit you, and I rathered to trust you, your words, your sensations, your image of yourself... atleast I wasn't so pretentious.

Atleast I was not that fraud who called into question my philosophical integrity, my objectivity as regards Satyr and this topic, when he couldn't display a critical thread or any open-minded discussion with his own mentor but he'd rather tell someone else to go f--- their sister.

Atleast I was not that liar who claimed to accept my monstrosity and then play the "what's wrong with you?" drama when he couldn't take honest appraisals...

Atleast I have still let you keep your hat on even though you trampled on whatever it is I saw in you...


Mo wrote:
You haven't been "let in"


Then I'll be standing out your door till you return my poor hanky. And then be done with me Mo.


_________________
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

"ἐδιζησάμην ἐμεωυτόν." [Heraclitus]

"All that exists is just and unjust and equally justified in both." [Aeschylus, Prometheus]

"The history of everyday is constituted by our habits. ... How have you lived today?" [N.]

*Become clean, my friends.*
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://ow.ly/RLQvm
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 15229
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Hedonism or This and that: Discourse on the Method of Rightly Conducting your Reason and Seeking Truth in the Sciences Thu Jul 10, 2014 1:42 pm

Moooooooooooooo wrote:
I'm a master psychologizer, like Nietzsche.
I think that quote can be filed along with shit-Stain saying his I.Q. has been officially measured in the 160 range, and was a member of MENSA, Imbecile also claiming the latter, Saint claiming he's explained everything, Maj claiming she "almost" was MENSA, and Purple Dragon/Aeon claiming that what he is working on, at the moment, will change human history for the next thousand years.

That, alone, is all that needs to be said.

Have you ever, EVER, read anything, by this retard, that would come close to justifying this claim?
EVER?!
In the ChatBox he defended the benefits of race mixing.
We're talking about a moron on a whole...nuther....lebel.



Funny...they come on together and leave together...for some deep, secret pow-wows.
It's becoming a bit sad.  
All they have now is this "pleasure is an end", thing.
It defines their shared intellectual level.
Naive romantic idealism and cynical aloofness coming together in shared hedonism.
One feeding the others needs.

_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://satyr.canadian-forum.com/
Æon
Wyrm
avatar

Gender : Male Posts : 1900
Join date : 2014-03-25
Location : Outside

PostSubject: Re: Hedonism or This and that: Discourse on the Method of Rightly Conducting your Reason and Seeking Truth in the Sciences Thu Jul 10, 2014 2:51 pm

Last year when I made that claim, Satyr, I felt as though I had something to prove to you, or Echo, or somebody else in these social circles. I now feel differently. I have nothing to prove to you. And any great wisdom or knowledge I acquire, I no longer owe you anything. You are not necessarily my ally, my friend, nor my enemy. I put you on neutral ground, or, lower.

I wonder if you can offer me anymore challenges........probably not.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 15229
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Hedonism or This and that: Discourse on the Method of Rightly Conducting your Reason and Seeking Truth in the Sciences Thu Jul 10, 2014 2:57 pm

Æon wrote:
Last year when I made that claim, Satyr, I felt as though I had something to prove to you, or Echo, or somebody else in these social circles.  I now feel differently.  I have nothing to prove to you.  And any great wisdom or knowledge I acquire, I no longer owe you anything.  You are not necessarily my ally, my friend, nor my enemy.  I put you on neutral ground, or, lower.

I wonder if you can offer me anymore challenges........probably not.
Exactly!!!
And that group also includes psychologies with something to prove, compensating for mediocre minds with extravagant claims.

If you cannot show it, just state it....and if you repeat it often enough you might convince someone.
I know why, you did it...but that you could claim, without being embarrassed, that you are building a philosophy that will change mankind for the next one-thousand years, is the same as stating that you are as great psychologizer as Nietzsche, or that your I.Q. is 160.
It's what weakling do to impress: they puff out their chests walk around as if their muscles are too big for them to walk properly, and they claim that they can lift weights in excess of what their frame reveals.
It's so funny it's pathetic.

It's a contradiction of actions with words, that are so inflated that they are full of hot air; a hyperbolic bubble just begging to be burst.

_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://satyr.canadian-forum.com/
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 15229
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Hedonism or This and that: Discourse on the Method of Rightly Conducting your Reason and Seeking Truth in the Sciences Fri Jul 11, 2014 11:06 pm

A [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] I found on the way to my daily stroll in the park.

_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://satyr.canadian-forum.com/
Kvasir

avatar

Gender : Male Virgo Posts : 836
Join date : 2013-01-09
Age : 32
Location : Gleichgewicht

PostSubject: Re: Hedonism or This and that: Discourse on the Method of Rightly Conducting your Reason and Seeking Truth in the Sciences Sat Jul 12, 2014 3:37 am

Satyr wrote:
A [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] I found on the way to my daily stroll in the park.

My favorite parts:

Quote :
Suspect A definition solely in terms of consequences might seem too broad, because it includes absurd theories such as the theory that an act is morally right if it increases the number of goats in Texas. Of course, such theories are implausible. Still, it is not implausible to call them consequentialist, since they do look only at consequences. The implausibility of one version of consequentialism does not make consequentialism implausible in general, since other versions of consequentialism still might be plausible.

Quote :
Suspect Preference utilitarianism is often criticized on the grounds that some preferences are misinformed, crazy, horrendous, or trivial. I might prefer to drink the liquid in a glass because I think that it is beer, though it really is strong acid. Or I might prefer to die merely because I am clinically depressed. Or I might prefer to torture children.

Quote :
Suspect Many consequentialists deny that all values can be reduced to any single ground, such as pleasure or desire satisfaction, so they instead adopt a pluralistic theory of value.

Quote :
Suspect Other consequentialists add the intrinsic values of friendship or love, freedom or ability, life, virtue, and so on.

Quote :
:suspect:some consequentialists hold that an act is right if and only if it maximizes some function of both happiness and capabilities

Quote :
:suspect:Or one could hold that an act is right if it maximizes respect for (or minimizes violations of) certain specified moral rights. Such theories are sometimes described as a utilitarianism of rights.

Quote :
Suspect consequentialists even hold that certain values are incommensurable or incomparable in that no comparison of their values is possible

Quote :
Suspect some consequentialists foreswear the aggregation of values.

Quote :
:suspect:Other consequentialists, however, incorporate a more robust commitment to equality.

Quote :
Suspect most consequentialists claim that overall utility is the criterion or standard of what is morally right or morally ought to be done.

Quote :
Suspect an indirect consequentialist holds that the moral qualities of something depend on the consequences of something else.

Quote :
:suspect:acceptance rule consequentialists then claim that an act is morally wrong if and only if it violates a rule whose acceptance has better consequences than the acceptance of any incompatible rule.

Quote :
:suspect:If the principle of utility is used as a criterion of the right rather than as a decision procedure, then classical utilitarianism does not require that anyone know the total consequences of anything before making a decision.

Quote :
scratchmost consequentialists do not mind giving up consequentialism as a direct decision procedure as long as consequences remain the criterion of rightness.

Quote :
Suspectthe important point is that consequentialism and the other elements of classical utilitarianism are compatible with many different theories about which things are good or valuable.

Quote :
:suspect:If utilitarians want their theory to allow more moral knowledge, they can make a different kind of move by turning from actual consequences to expected or expectable consequences. Suppose that Alice finds a runaway teenager who asks for money to get home. Alice wants to help and reasonably believes that buying a bus ticket home for this runaway will help, so she buys a bus ticket and puts the runaway on the bus. Unfortunately, the bus is involved in a freak accident, and the runaway is killed. If actual consequences are what determine moral wrongness, then it was morally wrong for Alice to buy the bus ticket for this runaway.

Quote :
:suspect:Some utilitarians bite the bullet and say that Alice's act was morally wrong, but it was blameless wrongdoing, because her motives were good, and she was not responsible, given that she could not have foreseen that her act would cause harm. Since this theory makes actual consequences determine moral rightness, it can be called actual consequentialism.

Quote :
:suspect:Moderate deontologists, for example, often judge that it is morally wrong to kill one person to save five but not morally wrong to kill one person to save a million. They never specify the line between what is morally wrong and what is not morally wrong, and it is hard to imagine any non-arbitrary way for deontologists to justify a cutoff point.

Quote :
:suspect:Another problem for utilitarianism is that it seems to overlook justice and rights. One common illustration is called Transplant. Imagine that each of five patients in a hospital will die without an organ transplant. The patient in Room 1 needs a heart, the patient in Room 2 needs a liver, the patient in Room 3 needs a kidney, and so on. The person in Room 6 is in the hospital for routine tests. Luckily (for them, not for him!), his tissue is compatible with the other five patients, and a specialist is available to transplant his organs into the other five. This operation would save their lives, while killing the “donor”. There is no other way to save any of the other five patients.with the right details filled in, it looks as if cutting up the “donor” will maximize utility, since five lives have more utility than one life (assuming that the five lives do not contribute too much to overpopulation).

Quote :
:suspect:Most utilitarians lack such strong stomachs (or teeth), so they modify utilitarianism to bring it in line with common moral intuitions, including the intuition that doctors should not cut up innocent patients.

Quote :
:suspect:Yet another argument for a kind of consequentialism is contractarian. argues that all informed, rational people whose impartiality is ensured because they do not know their place in society would favor a kind of consequentialism.

Quote :
ArrowEven if none of these arguments proves consequentialism, there still might be no adequate reason to deny consequentialism. We might have no reason either to deny consequentialism or to assert it. Consequentialism could then remain a live option even if it is not proven.

Relativism's Rationalism....circuitous logic spewing out circular rationales to attain mental neutrality. Liberalism turning reason on its head. An Alice in Wonderland absurdity of logic.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
There Will Be Blood

avatar

Gender : Male Posts : 852
Join date : 2013-09-08
Location : Taiwan

PostSubject: Re: Hedonism or This and that: Discourse on the Method of Rightly Conducting your Reason and Seeking Truth in the Sciences Sat Jul 12, 2014 4:45 am

Quote :
Last year when I made that claim, Satyr, I felt as though I had something to prove to you, or Echo, or somebody else in these social circles. I now feel differently. I have nothing to prove to you.

No, social and mental retard of the 10th degree. Within the context, stating that would be in contradiction of actually feeling it within the spirit of the being. I would just Love to get a glimpse of the surroundings through out your life, or mabey not, it's just depressing.


So basically Aeon just said he feels less aware of his surroundings, and that it does not matter. The opium is starting to loose effect, but the addiction still there. Higher doses, higher illusions in craving. You leave soon, just like Mo, it was so funny because he always came back for this one last post even though it made abosultly no difference to anyone other than him. It's like a part of the mind was lacking in conviction, dissonance had to be resolved else the totality would start to self-destruct.

It's like these romantic pedophiles, where in they are so weak they just have to believe it.





A degree in fucking philisophy!!!!
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 15229
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Hedonism or This and that: Discourse on the Method of Rightly Conducting your Reason and Seeking Truth in the Sciences Sat Jul 12, 2014 8:16 am

Knowledge/Omniscience = partial, incomplete, negation of Ignorance
Of course to will more knowledge, to move towards the idea(l) of omniscience implies the presence of some knowledge - in the organism this knowledge need not be conscious, but part of an inherited, genetic code - genes being encoded experiences.
The movement begins from lifelessness, unconsciousness, then becoming conscious of its ignorance (need), and willing/striving/moving towards the idea(l) of omniscience.
Of course omniscience is impossible, both because the world is dynamic and ever-changing, and also because the attainment of this absolute state of knowing would entail the superfluity of thinking - it would be the end of it.

Power/Omnipotence = partial and incomplete negation of powerlessness

Strength = partial and incomplete negation of weakness

Awareness/Consciousness = partial and incomplete negation of unconsciousness

Order = partial and incomplete negation of chaos/randomness

Oneness/Singularity = partial and incomplete negation of fragmentation, multiplicity

One = partial and incomplete negation of nil
Both 1/0 are the binary representation of the absolute - they are both symbols of nihilism as they both negate dynamic processes: One through its insinuation of the reduction/implosion of all possibilities into a singular probability, and the nil as a negation of probabilities altogether.

Pleasure/Satiation = partial and incomplete negation of suffering/pain
Need being the existent, or the experience/consciousness of existence - a state of never being at rest.
That which is lacking, and the organism becomes aware of as need, can be projected as the idea(l); the object/objective - and this Ideal is always a reaction and a contradiction of the real, in degree.

Beauty/Symmetry = partial and incomplete negation of asymmetry.
Since the brain is a forager of order - it needs order to complete itself - the brain can only process a pattern - which is a degree of order already present.
Therefore, all that exists and has some degree of order - exhibits a pattern - is, to some degree, beautiful to the organism.

Independence = partial and incomplete negation of dependence/contingency

Freedom/Liberty = partial and incomplete negation of determinism/nature/past
The attainment of an effect with no cause - absolute self-referential solipsism.
God willing his own willing.

God = partial and incomplete negation of godlessness - here god represents a multiplicity of traits (power, love, consciousness)  


The "positive" is a negation of the "negative" in the dualistic paradigm.
Man projects an idea(l), which contradicts the real, as a "towards".

The idea(l) can take on any form, as the end result, the desired, the ambiguous destination....but the "towards" cannot be inverted.
You cannot say all is gnosis and ignorance is a measure of it, positing ignorance as a towards.
You cannot say all is pleasure and suffering is a measure of it, positing suffering/pain as the towards.

The starting proposition whether it be characterized as existent, brain, will, self, need is always in the negative striving towards what is, to it, a positive.
Of course the 'negative' is not complete either....it is a towards which requires no will, no effort, no striving towards...it just IS.

The yin/yang.
To strive towards the idea(l), towards the absolute which is lacking, towards completion/perfection, there must be some order present.

The absolute and total negation of the negative is also nihilistic, for it implies an end to movement/activity....an end to the towards.  
God would represent a negation of existence, if not for the Devil.

Furthermore the movement towards increases the demand for energies. For example as we approach the absolute Being, God, ORDER, One, we require increasingly more energies to self-maintain and to then move forwards towards the end - the completion would require infinite energies, and so the absolute can never be attained.
Stress increases exponentially as one increases in degree of order - more demands upon the ordering to self-maintain what order it has attained, against the ongoing, ceaseless, relentless attrition of Time/Change/Flux.

Time being a human standard for measuring change, and change being a human perception of Flux.
Need is how this flux is sensed without the requirement of large brains and more sophisticated forms of consciousness.

The organism is not a being in need, it IS need, as it is an ordering/becoming contrary to the ubiquitous unbecoming, disordering/chaos.

I am not a being that just happened to have this or that experience.
I AM my experiences...whether another considers them traumatic or cathartic or soothing or whatever, in relation to its own experiences or to some ideal.
I am not an organism that sees, hears, acts...I AM seeing, hearing, thinking, acting.
I AM the activity; not a static Being that exhibits some dynamic qualities.
I am never at rest...I am in a constant state of egrigorsi, dynamism, energy expenditure, (inter)activity.
I am never without need. My needs may be easily met, turning my consciousness away from them, but they are never ended.
I AM need.
My existence, as a Becoming, never being, a towards the idea(l), a self-maintaining self-organizing, never absolutely so, is a constant (inter)activity requiring continuous expenditure of energies.

I can say that in comparison to an earlier state, or to a future possible state, I am comfortable, but I can never say that my needs are ever absolutely satiated....
There is no state of rest, inertia, absolute.
My state of comfort is related to the amount of energies I need and the amount of energies at my disposal.

_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://satyr.canadian-forum.com/
Æon
Wyrm
avatar

Gender : Male Posts : 1900
Join date : 2014-03-25
Location : Outside

PostSubject: Re: Hedonism or This and that: Discourse on the Method of Rightly Conducting your Reason and Seeking Truth in the Sciences Sat Jul 12, 2014 1:38 pm

There Will Be Blood wrote:
No, social and mental retard of the 10th degree. Within the context, stating that would be in contradiction of actually feeling it within the spirit of the being. I would just Love to get a glimpse of the surroundings through out your life, or mabey not, it's just depressing.


So basically Aeon just said he feels less aware of his surroundings, and that it does not matter. The opium is starting to loose effect, but the addiction still there. Higher doses, higher illusions in craving. You leave soon, just like Mo, it was so funny because he always came back for this one last post even though it made abosultly no difference to anyone other than him. It's like a part of the mind was lacking in conviction, dissonance had to be resolved else the totality would start to self-destruct.
TWBB I judge that you are a moron and waste of my time.

Create intellectual threads and responses if you ever wish to impress me. I see you as a manimal. You lack reasonability. You don't belong on this forum. Go participate in Erik's fist fighting, warrior, brawling threads. That is more along your level.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Sponsored content




PostSubject: Re: Hedonism or This and that: Discourse on the Method of Rightly Conducting your Reason and Seeking Truth in the Sciences

Back to top Go down
 
Hedonism or This and that: Discourse on the Method of Rightly Conducting your Reason and Seeking Truth in the Sciences
View previous topic View next topic Back to top 
Page 4 of 6Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
 Similar topics
-
» Deputy for Kurdistan: political discourse should be consolidated in response to the defense of the demands and rights of the people of Kurdistan On: Friday 06/04/2012 19:08
» Discourse Markers / Connectors
» Crossing the Miqat without putting on Ihram
» Acronyms
» failure of bidding

Permissions in this forum:You cannot reply to topics in this forum
Know Thyself :: AGORA-
Jump to: