I'm not saying seeking pleasure leads to truth; I'm saying seeking truth leads to a spotlight on how you feel. When we talk about 'truth', we are talking about something esoteric that can't be approached in the same way that we learn about anything else. It's a common mistake to believe that we can get to truth through the intellect.

The way to get to truth is by examining yourself looking for untruthful qualities. You have to first make sure you are capable of recognizing truth by uncovering its impediments within you. It's not by trusting your intellect but through distrust and introspection that you get there.

I think I introduced the term "hedonism" in this thread, so I'll define what I mean by it more specifically.

Hedonism is a theory about what constitutes the good life, or about what it is rational to try to achieve in your actions. Essentially, it is the idea that pleasure and pain are the only things with intrinsic value. This means that something is of value only insofar as it affects people's pleasure or pain. Thus, a good life is one that is full of pleasure and with little pain.

As you say, this doesn't imply that you shouldn't be altruistic. For instance, the classical utilitarianism of J.S. Mill and Jeremy Bentham is hedonistic, but gives no justification for a preference for your own pleasure/pain than to others. In fact, it is an implication (arguably) of their theories that you should prefer actions which cause less pleasure to yourself if they bring greater pleasure to others in the aggregate (Peter Singer's article "Affluence, Famine, and Morality" is a strikingly clear exposition of this implication).

I just think both you and craig1120 are underestimating the actual variety of human desires directing our actions. Sure pleasure and pain are drivers of human action, but humans are distinguished from other animals by our ability to form and pursue long-term plans and goals. If you look at the actual goals pursued by humans (whether success in business, a good life for your progeny, the glory of god, social justice for other humans, the glory of your social group, and so on, it just isn't very plausible to me that they all ultimately reduce to pleasure or pain.

Eh. I have at various times in my life struggled with fairly severe depression. I have not found that becoming more introspectively aware of the causes or nature of my depression has inclined me towards a hedonistic philosophy--quite the opposite really. At my lowest points I generally feel the least desire for pleasure/against pain as it seems then both most meaningless and unattainable. I think my inability to control my own level of hedonic affect has actually caused me to instead pursue a life directed towards concrete, external goals rather than than the achievement of the ephemeral sensations of pleasure.

I'm not saying that becoming aware that in your life pain predominates can't have the effect you, describe, just that I don't think it is universal, that different people respond differently to that awareness.

To bring this back around to where you originally started, I think this means that it is incorrect that a life directed towards an external measure of achieving moral good--what you are calling here righteousness--is somehow worse than a life directed towards achieving pleasure and minimizing pain. The grounds on which you justify this claim this is that we must want pleasure as our primary goal when we become most aware of how painful life truly is. But this premise is I think false. There is no must here. Maybe there is for you--I can't say what options are open for you. But I don't think that is universally so.

Humans are of course attracted to pleasure and repulsed by pain. Nor are these things something we have full control over. Still, it is far too simple to hold these as the "all or nothing" of human action.

Higher thought does indeed get influenced by pain and pleasure (from modern measurement techniques we know now that these will often take place before higher thought is engaged), but higher thought can also influence them back: By making us hold attitudes towards what is pleasurable and what is painful, by influencing how pleasurable and painful we think something is and so forth. Higher thought can also change based on learning and problemsolving. Higher thought can even make us happy or make us feel mock pains.

The brain functions as a network, a network that constantly "goes on", where the parts influence eachother and create flows of thought and actions, and these are then translated into new flows of thoughts and actions. Couple this with social interaction that also follows a pattern of interaction, and you have a system where exactly what individuals pursue and desire will always be changing.

It is far too simplistic, and not supported by the evidence, that we simply "seek out pleasure", just as it is wrong that our lives are guided by simple rationality.

Yes, I see now that what I was proposing in the OP only applies when you are consciously engaged in that pain state, in which pain relief becomes the highest priority. I've just been in that mindset for so long that I forget sometimes that it isn't a common perspective.

One of the main reasons why I started posting on this forum is to help clarify how I got to where I am. I believe the forces that pushed me in this direction apply to everyone, so when people tell me that they aren't driven by how they feel, my first reaction is not that we are all different and unique, but that they must not be fully aware of those feelings.

However, my last post helped me to remember that there is a previous step that I was forgetting. It is the pursuit of truth that leads to the full awareness of the pain problem. The first step is to direct awareness to the fact that we have automatic thoughts that influence our decisions and behavior that are not based in truth. It is through the investigation of these unwanted thoughts that leads to the realization that they arise as a result of the triggering of unwanted feelings.

So, the question I should have asked was is there anyone here who isn't concerned with the truth? When you make decisions that guide your behaviors does it matter if that information is true or not? Of course it does, right.

Then, the next question is if there are indeed automatic, untrue thoughts on the periphery of your awareness that influence you. Once these are discovered, usually during times of high stress, next it's about the development of self-awareness to become aware of all of them to keep them from controlling you. After awhile of this, the frustration builds to a point where you don't just want to continue to be on the defense, but you want to find a solution to the issue. This leads to a deeper examination of the source of the problem, and through this deep introspection you get to the feelings of pain. Finally, this same process that was applied to the unwanted thoughts gets applied to the pain.

For me "truth" is mostly an abstract tool, it is not something you can actually achieve. 2+2=4 is true, but that 2 apples and 2 more apples make 4 apples is only true as an abstraction or a model. A good model must be internally valid, but it will never be what it models - it merely describes it in a useful manner (it is sound). That means I hold that my beliefs must be testable, falsifiable and based on evidence. Now, of course I (like everyone) else will have some heuristics, some simple "take for granted" beliefs that help me in my everyday life, but I acknowledge that they are just that. Sometimes, we also need to speculate and build models that might not be immediately testable, these however should cut down unnecessary fluff.

So, even though I see "truth" only as a symbolic tool. It is still an extremely important one to me - as I hold that solid beliefs can't be attained without that tool.

For some this might be mechanical, and perhaps it is. I take refuge in the aesthetic personally. I write, make music, play instruments, hike, read stories, play theatre and so forth. I think art, experiencing beauty and imagination and speculations are some of the most important and best aspects of humanity. Perhaps this sounds very elitist and pretentious, but I think if more people created with their imagination and we focused more on that as one of the integral parts of being human, we would see a lot of less conflict in the world. I think the ability to imagine and create stories almost invariably creates more ability to use different perspectives.

And of course, deducing what we should aim to become will always lack something. We have to imagine as a part of that. If not, we're just overly complicated furniture.

My thoughts:

Your "proposition" on the most important thing to be valued in our lives is only a subjective opinion.

Your argument for people who "propose" an alternative is invalid. It's only an extreme that an alternative value would have to justify living in "constant, excruciating pain"; furthermore, even if someone is insisting that there was some greater value whilst enduring this degree of pain, you would have to define pain -- heard of Congenital insensitivity to pain? Well, now you have anyway.

Your argument for why religious people want to go to heaven is baseless. It is once more a personal notion for people, and is hard to pinpoint and define.

Your speculation on why people seem to evaluate themselves based on morality is pretty meaningless. In the first place religions do not seem to be going away anytime soon if you read the news, and again your explanation is just an idea that seems to make sense where you're trying to generalize it. Forget it, you can't pinpoint cause and effect here. Also, people can have a sustainable moral system without being religious: it's called obeying the law and being a nice and friendly citizen.


About the only thing you got somewhat right, but not after amazingly turning your post into a self-defeating and confused mess after this paragraph. What your wrote in this paragraph is basically just insane buddy.

Why do I form my beliefs and knowledge from other people and external sources, as well? Because if I had just relied on "introspection" and opposed the concept of morality in my life, who knows I might have been ranting dumb stuff like your post here.


No legitimate 21st century state is going to make you swallow a view of righteousness until you accept it or choke; but instead you decide the actual and precise shape of your beliefs on your own. You understand and follow the law, you respect the "unwritten laws" if you want to be liked, and your beliefs here and there come from your own thoughts and also the thoughts of other people, if you want to maintain a bit of perspective.

My afterthoughts: Listen to people who give you structured criticism sooner rather than later.

I think for me it started on a more basic level. My concern for truthfulness began as it applied to situations. Then, it delves into larger beliefs like your talking about and identities.

I'm sure we've all been in situations or arguments in which we were wrong due to high emotions and it caused harm either to ourselves or others. After things have calmed down and we can assess the situation more clearly, seeing how we were deceived due to our emotional impulses and thoughts, we can either choose to be in denial of it and move forward, we can rationalize or justify our actions, or we can decide to try to prevent it from happening again. I'm saying that when we decide to no longer be apart of this problem is when we begin to really value the truth.

So, I guess I'm talking about a focus on truthfulness as it applies to our own thoughts and self-talk.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value_judgment

Look, everything I share is experiential. People that aren't willing to expand their evaluation beyond intellectualization and thought won't be able to view things how I have. You think my approach is wrong and I think your approach is limited and prevents growth. Let's just go our separate ways.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delusional_disorder

You're better than that buddy. You've moved beyond intellectualization. True enlightenment.

Stephen Hawking who!?

Reading back over this, I don't think I explained my position very well here. I meant to be talking about truthfulness as it relates to our intentions.

When we interact with people, there are certain underlying expectations we go in with about that specific interaction or just general expectations about how we should conduct ourselves. When we become emotional and feel wronged in some way, we deviate from our original intentions and often cause harm to the other person.

You see these deviations all the time on this forum and in life in general. I'm sure just about everyone, if you ask them, will say that they want their experiences and interactions to be beneficial for themselves and others, but if you examine what they say and do, there will be countless examples of behaviors in which it is clear that their intention was to cause harm in some capacity. I'm defining being truthful in this thread as staying within the boundaries of your original expectations for yourself.

This desire to hold oneself accountable is what begins the process of self-examination. The desire to stop falling short and failing in the execution is what deepens it and turns it into a habit.

One last post since this is not quite all of it. This entire endeavor doesn't happen without a paradigm change. It comes out of a place of disillusionment and struggle. There is a complete rejection of how reality has offered itself to you up to that point, but it is not escapism; you are not making a decision to withdraw from reality but more like transcend it while engaging with more force. This shift is quick and decisive. There is no analysis or thought that goes into it. It's done from a place of higher creativity, faith, and determination.

The old paradigm has now been transcended and for all intents and purposes no longer exists, so there is no more striving for incremental changes, the new goal is perfection. The idea that we can only truly control ourselves is fully realized and embraced. The new paradigm deals only in absolutes - the only consideration is if things are possible and questions of difficulty are no longer concerns. Further, things are now possible if we decide they are possible. Becoming hyper ambitious, we no longer attempt to simply keep up or compare ourselves to anyone else. We are now the only one who sets the standard for ourselves, can only be self-validated, and hold ourselves fully accountable.

Eventually, you get to a point of balance and come back from the extreme but there is no going back once you make this shift. If you find yourself once again engrossed in the old paradigm over a long period of time, then you didn't really make the shift. There is no straddling of the line; it requires a leap of faith.

I want to be able to reference this later, which is why I elaborated. I'm not looking for anymore feedback or anything since I feel like I now have the clarity I was looking for.

Hafiz:"Whatever makes you happy give everything to serve it."
No one says act morally correct for that you suffer. Everyone who invites to moral behavior it is because that he thinks moral behavior is the way to happiness.
As every immoral act makes us dependent on things that we don't have any kind of meaningful control over them, no immoral act can be considered as a proper way to happiness.
For example having sex: We have no meaningful control over our sexual organs as they for example become old and at some point will stop working and we have also no meaningful control over the partner as it can leave us or dissatisfy us.
Of course for some time it might make us happy but it doesn't hold and at some point it will lead to disappointment.
Another quote from Hafiz:"Why shall I not be my own king?"
As every immoral act is about satisfying the bodies desires, immoral acts promote our body to be our king. Body is weak and vulnerable. Thus the more we become its servant the more we will become weak and vulnerable.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafez

My dad is dying of cancer. Stage 4. Brain, lung and liver. A few weeks ago I was taking out his trash and the bag spilled open. I found all of his photographs over the years ripped in half. Pictures of him as a young man. Pictures of his mother, me, my brother, Christmas, whatever. All ripped up as trash. I had never been so sad in my life.

If you think life is about positive feelings and quality of life, you are just wrong. I'm more than ever convinced that "man cannot live on bread alone," as Christ said. There are times, and the times may come, when all of those positive feelings and good times may seem like litter to you, or mere paper. The cash you have accumulated, the kids you have had, the memories you have made. All of it may seem like ****.

In various ways, I've suggested that it's about solving the problem of suffering. You are bringing up examples of suffering to attempt to counter my point that it's all about solving the problem of suffering?

+1
In his difficult situation one can understand him.

I'm sorry to hear that Doggg. Losing family can be really tough.