GENIUS FORUMS

Faust,

Faust13 wrote:

however there are some that are more happy by doing work that they enjoy

C: Can you give me some examples?

bill gates, donald trump, Oprah, scientists, artists, etc...

That these people are happy, or can experience happiness without too much misery(perhaps they do) is because of hard work, not hedonism. If you value the state of these people, what you should be advocating is not hedonism, but hard work balanced with some occasional leisure. I think that the peak of misery for any of these people or types you mentioned above is strongly connected to their peak pleasures. Actually, these successes may very well be successes because they have spent most of their time escaping from their misery by obsessive, ambitious hard work, instead of pleasure. I don't think a scientists would consider their lifestyle hedonistic. Many artists probably would, as artists are often stereotypically miserable - due to their hedonism.

or have inherited enough wealth to enjoy their non-working lives.

C: What do they do with themselves? Again, do you have any examples in mind?

they have fun, do creative artistic or intellectual projects with their spare time and wealth.

I think you've bought into a fairy tale image.

what if his lack of conscience doesn't thwart him to sorrow and despair?? After all there's no god right?

C: Ok, even if he doesn't suffer, the fact is that he ends up with a very gaunt conscience, for he has lived a petty, shallow life.

depends how much time he spent womanizing. If he say spent almost all of his time doing better things, and did this on the side.

But again, his well being depends on his doing better things on the side. These better things are less pleasurable, in fact, if he is to have well being, they are not pleasurable at all.

The conscience thing is irrelevant ultimately since there's no god right?

Just because there is no God, does not mean one shouldn't have a sense of what is right and what is wrong. To have a developed conscience is to have a very clearly defined sense of right and wrong. To have a very gaunt conscience is to have a poorly developed and contradictory conduct in regards to right and wrong. To have no conscience is to be an animal.

Cory Duchesne wrote:Just because there is no God, does not mean one shouldn't have a sense of what is right and what is wrong. To have a developed conscience is to have a very clearly defined sense of right and wrong. To have a very gaunt conscience is to have a poorly developed and contradictory conduct in regards to right and wrong. To have no conscience is to be an animal.

A genius realizes there is no "right" and "wrong". Conscience is something that needs to be overcome, assuming that most of us were raised with a strong conscience towards Christian "rights" and "wrongs" by society.

That these people are happy, or can experience happiness without too much misery(perhaps they do) is because of hard work, not hedonism.

I think this is overly simplistic. Human beings differ radically from one to another, and what makes one person happy cannot be taken as evidence for what makes others happy.

In fact, a large part of what makes people happy seems to be inborn temperament; certain people (specifically, individuals low in psychometric Extraversion and high in Neuroticism) are temperamentally less happy than others (specifically, people high in Extraversion and low in Neuroticism).

For me, I find that what makes me happy has little to do with hard work, and much to do with a sense of connectedness with people I like. One of the biggest mood lifts I know of is seeing my wife come home, or having a long chat on the telephone with a good friend. While I can definitely believe that hard work makes some people happy, I tend to think that work is a sterile road to happiness promoted by cultures high in Hofstede's cultural masculinity index (MAS) - especially since people living in such cultures tend to be higher in psychometric Neuroticism!

WhorlyWhelk wrote:

Cory Duchesne wrote:Just because there is no God, does not mean one shouldn't have a sense of what is right and what is wrong. To have a developed conscience is to have a very clearly defined sense of right and wrong. To have a very gaunt conscience is to have a poorly developed and contradictory conduct in regards to right and wrong. To have no conscience is to be an animal.

A genius realizes there is no "right" and "wrong". Conscience is something that needs to be overcome, assuming that most of us were raised with a strong conscience towards Christian "rights" and "wrongs" by society.

Conscience is so not irrevelent whether there's a god or not.

No, you're confusing conscience with codified morality. Conscience has to do with the values which then give rise to right and wrong through interpretation of intentions. But it's difficult to assess and understand the intentions of others, so we interpret their intentions based on the attitudes and current modes of society (or past attitudes of society with creates problems). Most actions don't have an inherent rightness or wrongness, but we can understand why people do these actions and through association with intentions we develop a schema for moral actions that leads to codified morality. Codified morality however doesn't recognize the shifting attitudes in the evolution of culture and society that redefine certain associations. This is why a set moral code may contain certain dictates that when created corresponded to vulgarity, immodesty, etc, but now no longer are perceived in that way. Points of view have changed over time but the codes haven't evolved as quickly. This in no way means that there is no morality, all societies and all people have a sense of morality. There's a certain moral grammar that exists in all people and even though the language or laws of morality arise some what differently in different places and times, they all stem from the same important source, conscience.

F: or have inherited enough wealth to enjoy their non-working lives.

C: What do they do with themselves? Again, do you have any examples in mind?

F: they have fun, do creative artistic or intellectual projects with their spare time and wealth.

C: I think you've bought into a fairy tale image.

hahaha... Candide


Personally, I've never understood hedonism, it's completely against my nature, so I really can't analyze it that well. However, I will say that I don't think you can cure fate, but you can cure the soul. (Read Les Miserables- learn about conscience)

Forgetting Conscience through lack of thought corresponses to savagary or saintness; the two extremes of innocence and ignorance; animalistic. Having a conscience corresponds to an upright man. Having a corrupted conscience corresponds to evil or fanatism and I believe an inability to understand reality because of the inability to understand humanity.

WhorlyWhelk wrote:

Cory Duchesne wrote:Just because there is no God, does not mean one shouldn't have a sense of what is right and what is wrong. To have a developed conscience is to have a very clearly defined sense of right and wrong. To have a very gaunt conscience is to have a poorly developed and contradictory conduct in regards to right and wrong. To have no conscience is to be an animal.

A genius realizes there is no "right" and "wrong".

Do you likewise believe that to a genius, there is no 'truth' and 'falseness'?

Conscience is something that needs to be overcome, assuming that most of us were raised with a strong conscience towards Christian "rights" and "wrongs" by society.

If our conscience is the result of childhood religious conditioning, patriotism, loyalty to family, etc, then that conscience needs to be overcome, but only insofar as a sickness is overcome. One moves from having a sick conscience to a healthy one.

In fact, a large part of what makes people happy seems to be inborn temperament; certain people (specifically, individuals low in psychometric Extraversion and high in Neuroticism)

Hedonism really is a form of neuroticism.

And I think this 'high psychometric extraversion' implies a tremendous compromise and tolerance for average people, which I think is an indicator of low consciousness. People with very low levels of conscious do tend to be happier. Ignorance is bliss. But in the case of these types who are happy throughout their lives, they aren't hedonists, as they usually play by the rules, not doing drugs too excessively, not cheating on their spouse, not escaping into pleasure too much.

Lykaios wrote: One of the biggest mood lifts I know of is seeing my wife come home, or having a long chat on the telephone with a good friend.

How badly would your mood plummet if your wife didn't come home at all, leaving you for another man? That would hurt, wouldn't it?

Secondly, that you're wife actually comes home is likely due to the fact you are willing to work to help pay for a house, car, and whatever else you enjoy. If you suddenly started drinking wine all day, doing drugs and using her money for massages, movies, video games, never leaving the house, then I think you'd find you're wife's pleasant face as she walks in the door replaced by angry threats.

And that you enjoy a chat with your friend, really I think this stems from you and your friend having suffered similar fates, and thus you both derive a bit of catharsis and motivation from each others words. Where there's motivation, there's struggle, and from struggle, comes pleasure, from pleasure, pain, and from pain, catharsis. That's why I say pleasure and pain are two parts of an undivided whole. When you indulge and heighten your pleasure, you are doing the same to your pain.

Overall, the big thing I'm emphasizing here is that balancing work with pleasure is not hedonism. People who enjoy life consistently throughout their lives, without massive spells of bleakness that last decades, I think have their lives rooted in focused work which maintain their modest pleasure, which I wouldn't call hedonism. Now, whether or not these people have a very clear and consistent sense of right and wrong is not very likely.

cat10542 wrote:Conscience is so not irrevelent whether there's a god or not.

No, you're confusing conscience with codified morality. Conscience has to do with the values which then give rise to right and wrong through interpretation of intentions. But it's difficult to assess and understand the intentions of others, so we interpret their intentions based on the attitudes and current modes of society (or past attitudes of society with creates problems). Most actions don't have an inherent rightness or wrongness, but we can understand why people do these actions and through association with intentions we develop a schema for moral actions that leads to codified morality. Codified morality however doesn't recognize the shifting attitudes in the evolution of culture and society that redefine certain associations. This is why a set moral code may contain certain dictates that when created corresponded to vulgarity, immodesty, etc, but now no longer are perceived in that way. Points of view have changed over time but the codes haven't evolved as quickly. This in no way means that there is no morality, all societies and all people have a sense of morality. There's a certain moral grammar that exists in all people and even though the language or laws of morality arise some what differently in different places and times, they all stem from the same important source, conscience.

If there is no God or transcendental morality then there is no universal "right" and "wrong" -- that's what I meant. Now "right" and "wrong" are relative, and they are relative to one's own values. One's own values are related to one's understanding.

The morality of society is based on the majority, the herd. Would you want to share their "good" and "evil"? When we are raised we are usually raised into this morality (the Christian morality for us these days). Thus when I harm someone I have this "pang of conscience". However once I realize that harming someone is not inherently wrong and reason to the state where it can be considered good, based on my values and understanding of life, I no longer feel these ill feelings when I harm someone.

Cory,

Do you likewise believe that to a genius, there is no 'truth' and 'falseness'?

I'm not sure. Let's try this answer...
I wouldn't say that truths in my perspective are necessarily true for some other perspective.

If our conscience is the result of childhood religious conditioning, patriotism, loyalty to family, etc, then that conscience needs to be overcome, but only insofar as a sickness is overcome. One moves from having a sick conscience to a healthy one.

Of course. A healthy one which is based on one's revaluation of all values. One must understand much of life before he can attempt this.

Cory Duchesne wrote:

In fact, a large part of what makes people happy seems to be inborn temperament; certain people (specifically, individuals low in psychometric Extraversion and high in Neuroticism)

Hedonism really is a form of neuroticism.

I think we're running into a problem of terminology. Psychometric Neuroticism is a factor extracted from large batteries of self-report (and other-report) questionnaires which pertains to negative emotionality, and especially to anxiety. Neuroticism is known to be higher in females, is generally found to be higher in East Asians living in their own countries and abroad, and has been found to decrease with age. So hedonism is not really a form of Neuroticism, unless by Hedonism you mean a form of anxiety.

I think it might help if you were to define what exactly you mean when you use the word "hedonism." Is it a set of behaviors? A set of emotions? Or value-set? Which behaviors, feelings, or values are implied by hedonism? (I suspect that what you are really going to describe to me is the inverse of another personality characteristic, but I'd rather not put the words into your fingers.)

Cory Duchesne wrote:And I think this 'high psychometric extraversion' implies a tremendous compromise and tolerance for average people, which I think is an indicator of low consciousness.

Extraversion is largely genetic, and it appears to relate to the action of dopamine and the presence of dopamine receptors in the brain. Dopamine is commonly understood to be a chemical which improves mood.

Cory Duchesne wrote:People with very low levels of conscious do tend to be happier. Ignorance is bliss.

This is a scientific claim for which I don't think you could find much good evidence. As far as I know, there is no correlation between general knowledge and happiness or life satisfaction.

Lykaios wrote:

Cory Duchesne wrote:

In fact, a large part of what makes people happy seems to be inborn temperament; certain people (specifically, individuals low in psychometric Extraversion and high in Neuroticism)

Hedonism really is a form of neuroticism.

I think we're running into a problem of terminology. Psychometric Neuroticism is a factor extracted from large batteries of self-report (and other-report) questionnaires which pertains to negative emotionality, and especially to anxiety. Neuroticism is known to be higher in females, is generally found to be higher in East Asians living in their own countries and abroad, and has been found to decrease with age. So hedonism is not really a form of Neuroticism, unless by Hedonism you mean a form of anxiety.

Neurosis involves certain anxiety fueled obsessive compulsion, which I think excessive sensual indulgence (hedonism) stems from. In a state of pleasure, problems are momentarily eclipsed, so the neurotic is often immersing himself in pleasure to escape from reality. For instance, is it a coincidence that the average population in America is so excessively seeped in glitzy entertainment, yet on the other hand, so fearful and bigoted? (their obsession with guns, Christianity, osama bin laden, etc)

I think it might help if you were to define what exactly you mean when you use the word "hedonism."

I define it as a relatively high degree of pleasure seeking, with it's basis rooted in a certain dread and anxiety about matters pertaining to truth and personal responsibility.

Cory Duchesne wrote:People with very low levels of conscious do tend to be happier. Ignorance is bliss.

This is a scientific claim for which I don't think you could find much good evidence.

Look at the ignorance of happiness and excitement in the thousands of folks enthusiastic about the 'live earth' festival - here

Learning that the earth's atmosphere is weakening, that we're over-polluting and need to change makes people unhappy, the knowledge is misery - and so how do they respond? They continue to put up Christmas lights, organize a live earth festival, or preach the end of the world with Jesus our savior. Ignorance is indeed bliss, but I'll concede that bliss and misery are two sides of the same coin.

WhorlyWhelk wrote:Of course. A healthy one which is based on one's revaluation of all values. One must understand much of life before he can attempt this.

Yay!

Cory wrote:Neurosis involves certain anxiety fueled obsessive compulsion, which I think excessive sensual indulgence (hedonism) stems from.

No - Cory, look, "psychometric Neuroticism" isn't "neurosis." It's an empirical construct that was uncovered via factor analysis. People may have their own ideas about what words like "neuroticism" or "neurosis" are or mean, but "psychometric Neuroticism" (note the capital N) has a specific scientific meaning like "resonance frequency" or "gravitational constant." Psychologists find that there is tendency to report feeling anxious, embarrassed, depressed, and so on all together; that is, reports of these feelings covary. This is very different from the Freudian, philosophical, or pseudoscientific way of declaring that X is Y and that Y results from A, B, and C; this is the result of factor analysis which people have had to come up with a name for, the same way that a new planet or star needs a name. "Neuroticism" was the name psychologists chose.

Cory wrote:I define it as a relatively high degree of pleasure seeking, with it's basis rooted in a certain dread and anxiety about matters pertaining to truth and personal responsibility.

OK, but how would you distinguish between pleasure-seeking with a basis rooted in dread and anxiety and pleasure-seeking rooted in anything else? I'm very skeptical that most pleasure-seekers, even irresponsible ones, seek pleasure out of dread or anxiety. Most anxious people (i.e. people high in Neuroticism) report a tendency to avoid seeking pleasure, probably because doing so is often dangerous.

Cory wrote:Look at the ignorance of happiness and excitement in the thousands of folks enthusiastic about the 'live earth' festival - here

Learning that the earth's atmosphere is weakening, that we're over-polluting and need to change makes people unhappy, the knowledge is misery - and so how do they respond? They continue to put up Christmas lights, organize a live earth festival, or preach the end of the world with Jesus our savior. Ignorance is indeed bliss, but I'll concede that bliss and misery are two sides of the same coin.

I think that most of these people honestly disagree with you, and believe that you are exaggerating the danger the environment is in. This is my own position, in fact, and because I think there is grave danger to humanity and civilization from many other areas, so I can hardly be accused of being in a state of ignorant bliss. I suppose you could say that, at least from your own perspective, I am in a state of ignorant yet delusional misery, but I find that I am actually at peace with what I perceive as being the sorry fate of the world, and I think I can do this precisely because of my personality - I would probably be at peace with just about anything.

But unfortunately, I doubt that further discourse on this subject will be very enlightening, as I am largely dismissive of "just so stories" and prefer to find ways of operationalizing variables so that I can test whether they are related empirically, or else read about the findings of others who use this scientific approach, and I sense at this point that you, in turn, find this approach tedious and unenlightening. May you find satisfaction in your discussion on Hedonism, Suffering, and Conscience.

Lykaios wrote:

Cory wrote:Neurosis involves certain anxiety fueled obsessive compulsion, which I think excessive sensual indulgence (hedonism) stems from.

No - Cory, look, "psychometric Neuroticism" isn't "neurosis." It's an empirical construct that was uncovered via factor analysis. People may have their own ideas about what words like "neuroticism" or "neurosis" are or mean, but "psychometric Neuroticism" (note the capital N) has a specific scientific meaning like "resonance frequency" or "gravitational constant." Psychologists find that there is tendency to report feeling anxious, embarrassed, depressed, and so on all together; that is, reports of these feelings covary.

But if culture and even our biology is driven to take pride in superior sexual appearance, wealth, power, and cleverness - isn't it inevitable that we should have people dwelling in these negative states?

Cory wrote:I define it as a relatively high degree of pleasure seeking, with it's basis rooted in a certain dread and anxiety about matters pertaining to truth and personal responsibility.

OK, but how would you distinguish between pleasure-seeking with a basis rooted in dread and anxiety and pleasure-seeking rooted in anything else?

I don't. The key point in my definition is 'relatively high degree'. People who aren't hedonists, would have a moderate degree of pleasure seeking, with it's basis rooted in a certain dread and anxiety about matters pertaining to truth, personal responsibility, not to mention, a fear and dread of not being psychologically dependent on people.

I'm very skeptical that most pleasure-seekers, even irresponsible ones, seek pleasure out of dread or anxiety. Most anxious people (i.e. people high in Neuroticism) report a tendency to avoid seeking pleasure, probably because doing so is often dangerous.

This only testifies to the fact that, despite being less powerful, people high in Neuroticism are probably, in some ways, more conscious than the extroverts, who, because of beauty or cleverness, glide through life more unconsciously. That's not to say there are not a lot of really foolish introverts, though. I just think that such types are usually more aware of the hypocrisy and stupidity of the world. Most great scientists and philosophers were not very extroverted.

Cory wrote:Look at the ignorance of happiness and excitement in the thousands of folks enthusiastic about the 'live earth' festival - here

Learning that the earth's atmosphere is weakening, that we're over-polluting and need to change makes people unhappy, the knowledge is misery - and so how do they respond? They continue to put up Christmas lights, organize a live earth festival, or preach the end of the world with Jesus our savior. Ignorance is indeed bliss, but I'll concede that bliss and misery are two sides of the same coin.

I think that most of these people honestly disagree with you and believe that you are exaggerating the danger the environment is in.

No, I think many of those live earth enthusiasts were probably more bigoted and less skeptical about the reality of global warming than I am. What makes them ignorant is the way they deal with the troubling news. Consider this:

Wiki wrote: Bands including The Who, Muse and the Arctic Monkeys dubbed Live Earth "Private Jets for Climate Change." The event's total carbon footprint, including the artists' and spectators' travel and energy consumption, was probably at least 74,500 tonnes, according to John Buckley of CarbonFootPrint.com - more than 3,000 times the average Briton's annual footprint. Performers flew at least 222,623.63 miles (about 358,278 kilometres) — the equivalent of nearly nine times round the planet — to take part in the event, and this figure does not include transport of technicians, dancers and support staff. An estimate reported that 100,000 planted trees are required to offset total carbon emissions produced during the entire event, as well as a key sponsor for the event being Chevrolet, promoting a new hybrid four-wheel drive.

DaimlerChrysler used its low-emissions Smart car brand while sponsoring the event worldwide.

Concert-goers at the event’s London leg had left thousands of plastic cups on the floor of Wembley Stadium, although organisers had urged audience members to use the recycling bins provided, the BBC reported. [34]

Intelligent Giving have attempted to find out what was happening to the proceeds from ticket sales at the concerts. Their conclusions, published in a feature "What on (Live) Earth is going on?" were that no one involved is capable of giving a clear answer.[45]

Do you agree the live earth festival was hugely ignorant? And don't you see the relationship between the happiness the concert gave and the ignorance that it was rooted in?

I think there is grave danger to humanity and civilization from many other areas, so I can hardly be accused of being in a state of ignorant bliss.

I am not accusing you of such. What I'm saying is that I doubt very much that you are a hedonist, for if you are, you will soon be very miserable. Instead I think you're someone who works hard and is focused, and balances this out by seeking a moderate degree of pleasure. And I do believe your seeking of pleasure is born out of fear.

Why did you get married?

I suppose you could say that, at least from your own perspective, I am in a state of ignorant yet delusional misery

No, you may not be presently miserable, but I'd say you, like most people, are quite vulnerable to it. It sounds like you have a precious thing that would cause great unhappiness if you lost it.

WhorlyWhelk wrote:Cory,

Do you likewise believe that to a genius, there is no 'truth' and 'falseness'?

I'm not sure. Let's try this answer...

I wouldn't say that truths in my perspective are necessarily true for some other perspective.

So you believe that a genius has a sense of truth and falseness.

Do you believe that the truth exists independently of your mind? Or is a mind required for truth to be?

If our conscience is the result of childhood religious conditioning, patriotism, loyalty to family, etc, then that conscience needs to be overcome, but only insofar as a sickness is overcome. One moves from having a sick conscience to a healthy one.

Of course. A healthy one which is based on one's revaluation of all values. One must understand much of life before he can attempt this.

I would say that for me, every degree to which I come to know life, is a degree my values change. The two move with each other simultaneously, in my experience. How isn't this so, in your experience?

Cory,

I would say that for me, every degree to which I come to know life, is a degree my values change. The two move with each other simultaneously, in my experience. How isn't this so, in your experience?

I suppose this is true. If we dig in to reevaluate our values we will discover that we need to understand life to do so. So we need to have a philosophy of life before we can do this.

So you believe that a genius has a sense of truth and falseness.

Do you believe that the truth exists independently of your mind? Or is a mind required for truth to be?

A mind is part of being. To claim that it holds "the absolute truth" about being seems rather absurd to me. All it holds any truth about is concepts which probably aren't real.

WhorlyWhelk wrote:Cory,

I would say that for me, every degree to which I come to know life, is a degree my values change. The two move with each other simultaneously, in my experience. How isn't this so, in your experience?

If we dig in to reevaluate our values we will discover that we need to understand life to do so.

But our values change the instant we seek beyond them. Let's say I value going to church, and that I value beliefs such as: "people get what they deserve" and "God is good" But then my wife or my child gets killed. The moment I doubt my beliefs: "God is good, god is real, people get what they deserve" my values change. I suddenly value doubting the truth of my old values.

So you believe that a genius has a sense of truth and falseness. Do you believe that the truth exists independently of your mind? Or is a mind required for truth to be?

A mind is part of being.

Is there being without mind?

To claim that [the mind] holds "the absolute truth" about being seems rather absurd to me.

What else could possibly hold the truth about being, besides mind?

All it holds any truth about is concepts which probably aren't real.

What is more real than the concepts?

Cory,

CD: But our values change the instant we seek beyond them. Let's say I value going to church, and that I value beliefs such as: "people get what they deserve" and "God is good" But then my wife or my child gets killed. The moment I doubt my beliefs: "God is good, god is real, people get what they deserve" my values change. I suddenly value doubting the truth of my old values.

You can challenge all your values but you are just going to end up valuing nothing, or perhaps valuing truth. There may be no purpose to life but that doesn't mean human beings shouldn't or can't have purpose.

CD: Is there being without mind?

In some non-conceptual way.

WW: To claim that [the mind] holds "the absolute truth" about being seems rather absurd to me.

CD: What else could possibly hold the truth about being, besides mind?

What makes you think there is truth outside the forms and concepts of the mind?

What is more real than the concepts?

Not saying anything is, but concepts only exist within our minds and vary in different people and different perspectives. Thus your concepts and your truths only apply to you and others who share the same concepts.

WhorlyWhelk wrote:Cory,

CD: But our values change the instant we seek beyond them. Let's say I value going to church, and that I value beliefs such as: "people get what they deserve" and "God is good" But then my wife or my child gets killed. The moment I doubt my beliefs: "God is good, god is real, people get what they deserve" my values change. I suddenly value doubting the truth of my old values.

You can challenge all your values but you are just going to end up valuing nothing

When it comes to a human brain functioning at a mature and normal level, I'm not sure if valuing nothing is possible. A man who is confused about what he values, value's his introspective doubt and uncertainty. If you pressure such a man to do something or believe something, he may resist, not because he clearly knows what he values, but because he values his unknowing, likely because he has a goal of one day being clear about what he values.

A human being is either going with the flow of relationship (because he values being part of the flow) or he is going against the flow, this is either because he values his doubt and wonderings (which makes him ebb) or because he values beliefs which dictate he go against or with the flow, to varying degrees.

There may be no purpose to life but that doesn't mean human beings shouldn't or can't have purpose.

I'm not implying that.

WW: To claim that [the mind] holds "the absolute truth" about being seems rather absurd to me.

CD: What else could possibly hold the truth about being, besides mind?

What makes you think there is truth outside the forms and concepts of the mind?

I don't.

What is more real than the concepts?

Not saying anything is, but concepts only exist within our minds and vary in different people and different perspectives. Thus your concepts and your truths only apply to you and others who share the same concepts.

And thus we have clashing moralities.

With that considered, my point is simply this: To assent to a sense of truth and false, implies that one has a sense of right and wrong, which implies that one has a conscience which guides conduct, morality.

Cory,

WW: You can challenge all your values but you are just going to end up valuing nothing

CD: When it comes to a human brain functioning at a mature and normal level, I'm not sure if valuing nothing is possible.

I was referring to how this site would have you challenge all your values based on "truth" and deem valuing anything in an inherently meaningless world to be delusional. Valuing nothing is like Kevin and David's ideal. Kevin talks about reaching the stage where he no longer values truth -- great accomplishment! The only thing they must value is the sustaining of their body so they can continue to experience Nirvana.

CD: A man who is confused about what he values, value's his introspective doubt and uncertainty. If you pressure such a man to do something or believe something, he may resist, not because he clearly knows what he values, but because he values his unknowing, likely because he has a goal of one day being clear about what he values.

A man who is confused like such hasn't pursued understanding and done his homework. He probably still values things like pleasure or else he wouldn't be able to continue living without pursuing philosophy.

CD: With that considered, my point is simply this: To assent to a sense of truth and false, implies that one has a sense of right and wrong, which implies that one has a conscience which guides conduct, morality.

Truth is to be honest, false is to pretend something that you know is not. So seekers of the truth are honest rather than not. No other morality is required.

WhorlyWhelk wrote:Cory,

WW: You can challenge all your values but you are just going to end up valuing nothing

CD: When it comes to a human brain functioning at a mature and normal level, I'm not sure if valuing nothing is possible.

I was referring to how this site would have you challenge all your values based on "truth" and deem valuing anything in an inherently meaningless world to be delusional. Valuing nothing is like Kevin and David's ideal. Kevin talks about reaching the stage where he no longer values truth -- great accomplishment!

Can you link me to the post or piece of writing where he said that?

CD: A man who is confused about what he values, value's his introspective doubt and uncertainty. If you pressure such a man to do something or believe something, he may resist, not because he clearly knows what he values, but because he values his unknowing, likely because he has a goal of one day being clear about what he values.

A man who is confused like such hasn't pursued understanding and done his homework.

Maybe that is why he values his doubt and uncertainty - because he is trying to resolve his confusion by thinking about whether or not it makes sense to value the things he previously valued.

He probably still values things like pleasure or else he wouldn't be able to continue living without pursuing philosophy.

I can easily imagine a man doing his best to philosophize, yet he is in a confused state of mind where he doubts everything. I can also imagine this to be very stressful, and even though there are pleasures to be had, he refrains from them until he feels he's gained some certainty.

CD: With that considered, my point is simply this: To assent to a sense of truth and false, implies that one has a sense of right and wrong, which implies that one has a conscience which guides conduct, morality.

Truth is to be honest, false is to pretend something that you know is not.

False is also to know something that you don't know is not. (e.g., for centuries, many believed that the earth was stationary)

So seekers of the truth are honest rather than not.

There is a difference between being honest and knowing the whole truth. An honest person may be very ignorant, openly confessing his ignorance.

Cory Duchesne wrote:That these people are happy, or can experience happiness without too much misery(perhaps they do) is because of hard work, not hedonism.

but the work they do and did they love, so it's not really 'work.'

I think that the peak of misery for any of these people or types you mentioned above is strongly connected to their peak pleasures.

how would you know that they even have peak miseries and peak pleasures???? they could be just pretty happy.

Actually, these successes may very well be successes because they have spent most of their time escaping from their misery by obsessive, ambitious hard work, instead of pleasure.

escaping from what misery??? Maybe they found an interest and passion, and pursued it with pleasure, and now have continuous pleasure.

I don't think a scientists would consider their lifestyle hedonistic. Many artists probably would, as artists are often stereotypically miserable - due to their hedonism.

if a scientist fully enjoys what they do you could say they're being hedonistic. It depends which artists you're talking about, musicians yes, painters and such not as much.

F: they have fun, do creative artistic or intellectual projects with their spare time and wealth.

C: I think you've bought into a fairy tale image.

WTF??? If I inherited millions I would not be working and instead pursue intellectual projects, how the fuck is this a fairy tale???