/int/ – No shittings during wörktime
„There is no place like home“

Currently at Radio Ernstiwan:

Hail Odin! by Christenklatscher666


Niedliche Scheissmusik by Funpaku

Online player


File (max. 4)
Return to
  • Allowed file extensions (max. size 25 MB or specified)
    Images:  BMP, GIF, JPG, PNG, PSD   Videos:  FLV, MP4, WEBM  
    Archives:  7Z, RAR, ZIP   Audio:  FLAC, MP3, OGG, OPUS  
    Documents:  DJVU (50 MB), EPUB, MOBI, PDF (50 MB)  
  • Please read the Rules before posting.
  • Make sure you are familiar with the Guide to Anonymous Posting.

No. 50961
8 kB, 400 × 400
Why is hedonism bad? Why is seeking inward-directed pleasure for its own sake bad?
No. 50962 Kontra
Opinion time:

Hedonism is not sustainable with regards to the soul.
Every human wants to have made an impression somewhere, and/or feel a sense of purpose.
Hedonism is ignoring that and simply concentrates on the immediate impulse, and kind of like fast food, leaves one empty.

If you are talking about the philosophical hedonism, things get a bit more complicated, as it was also about prevention or avoidance of pain by indulging in the moment or, in the case of epicureans, by reaching something aking to the buddhist awakening, the ataraxia, which is the "absence" of any feelings meaning a state of complete serenity, no matter the environmental stress.
No. 50963
Given that you are not alone on this planet, seeking pleasure can have (bad) consequences for others.
No. 50975
What if my pleasure-seeking is solitary and doesn't harm anyone else?
No. 50979
Well it wouldn't be bad then I guess, but I'm quite sure it mostly won't happen that way, at least the hedonism that I know exploits system niches that allow for such a lifestyle. Some people will have to sustain and make possible what for a hedonist takes as another pleasure pleasing possibility, the conditions under which those people make it possible is the problem. There is nothing bad in seeking pleasure for oneself btw, but that is not what hedonism is about, hedonism is an ethic imperative, no? I think hedonism would rule out that you even think about if it harms others or not because you seek and care about self pleasure and not about other people and how pleasent it is for them that you seek a certain kind of self pleasure.
No. 50981
22 kB, 400 × 225
>Why is seeking inward-directed pleasure for its own sake bad?
It's not. It's only bad for you if you are dulling your capacity to experience pleasure. At some point, the pleasure will become routine, and you need stronger pleasure to maintain the subjective experience, much like an addict. Of course in some parts the ability to perceive pleasure regenerates faster than in others, so this might not apply everywhere, at least not in the same way. But I'm sure you know what I mean. It might sound cheesy, but for me I always found a good balance between "work" and "pleasure"-related activities the most rewarding. I always gibe the example of how it feels bad at the weekend to spend 16 hours in front of the computer, but it feels fine to spend 15 hours in front of the computer and have a 1h workout inbetween.

Who is saying that this would be a bad thing anyway?
No. 50988
916 kB, 1440 × 1440
It's bad to be inward directed in general, which is the entire premise between service-to-others philosophies versus service-to-self, which is basically just what everything from Star Wars to Christianity has extrapolated upon. You don't need to be a Sith lord to become a real obnoxious piece of shit, but it's a gradient, and when you drift further and further towards that inward direction as a society the closer you get towards midnight for your empire.

You, an EU citizen on the Wect, should be directly aware the gravity of that situation, as when everyone thinks of themselves first and the society little if at all, it's paradoxically the worst possible outcome for the selfish individual interest.

The drug addict is simply typifying the extremes of that, like a vampire whose personality has been subsumed by selfish need and want at the expense of all others. This isn't to say a few privileges taken here and there are a bad thing any more than a stiff drink after a long day's work on a Friday, but it can always precipitate that backslide into taking more and more liberties with things until you finally enter that one last drunken stupor that doesn't ever end, the effects of which are as deleterious to society as they are to you, and likewise as the literal your impact on society itself is damaging for no man is an island. Hyper individualism is a complete cancerous blight on the Wect. Like when you become a drunk hobo it's not just about you. It's not even just about people youre bothering. It impacts all your friends and family, who their strain then ripples across their jobs and friends and families from you stressing them out, inasmuch as you personally also strain the resources of society in dealing with you. At worst ends you become Russia, a nation of drunks and has-beens, an embarrassment to everybody left in your borders who's not a weak retard.

The problem begins when the reward becomes the objective itself, that is decadence. That is when full degenerative rot sets in in a society, and is what happens when a life of comfort and luxury becomes so hyper normalized it is seen as the sole objective in life. My entire country has had this happen over the last couple of decades and it is fucking horrifying to behold. The nihilistic pursuit of the self must always be fiercely opposed by a healthy ethical framework and moral philosophy, and a belief in something truly greater than yourself, some ideal, whatever it may be, that works towards the common good and just as the rising tide lifts all ships so too does it directly benefit you to do so. That collapse seems to happen when you simply hit too much of a critical mass that it goes from normal, to inspirational, to downright irrational to work towards helping others.
No. 50992 Kontra

Let's not treat our national or civic societies as something to be upheld at all costs. My people is my crew, not people born on the 'right' side of an arbitrary line on a map. I couldn't give a rat's arse about what happens to Australian society (it's a cancer on the continent). It can crash and burn and I'd gladly send over some petrol. I think a lot of wanting to maintain it is sitting on a fence huffing farts because the status quo treats you alright tbh.

Infinitely elastic SYNDICATES not stratified SOCIETIES ok. praise the Sydney Twelve
No. 51008
76 kB, 595 × 413
I dig your style man. I only give a rats ass about $Country or $Society if it affects my well-being.
No. 51009 Kontra
And really, such egoism does lead to good "ethical" outcome in my everyday life. For example I like to help old ladies across the street or to return wallets with all the money left. Or to give first aid. It makes me feel better because it's just...nice, I guess.
No. 51027
57 kB, 600 × 360
35 kB, 338 × 422
Tbh, my stance is less egoist, and more political. If the point of society is to be beneficial, and sacrifices are made for these benefits, then okay. Far from ideal but inoffensive milquetoast is just that. However, society doesn't do that at all. The IWW Constitution's preamble puts it best imo:

>The working class and the employing class have nothing in common. There can be no peace so long as hunger and want are found among millions of the working people and the few, who make up the employing class, have all the good things of life.

So to me, a society, being a construct built on concord and cooperation between people, cannot exist in its current state without being an abortion of a system. In fact, what I mean by infinitely elastic is to instead take the anarchy pill. If governance is of the people (in the actual sense, not the profane version envisioned by traditional republicanism), then it is not government but instead cooperation (this is what I refer to as the Syndicate for the sake of the mene format even though it's closer to the Workers' Councils which make up an Industrial Syndicate), and the governance does not exist as institution but as an extension of the will of the people, which due to its intangible nature will immediately bend to the shape of the desire of its members. It is therefore infinitely elastic to the will of the people and never are the people subject to the will of an archon.

t. syndiefrogs
No. 51034
1,7 MB, 2100 × 3767
No experience is fundamentally "better" or "worse" than another, they're all just sensations.
So it makes no sense to pursue one experience over another. Suffering, for example, can be appreciated even if it can't be enjoyed. Many works of art and things of great consequence have come from suffering.

If you're going to be a hedonist, you should be one regarding the totality of the human experience, not only one facet of it.

I think Nietzsche had something to say about this, but since my knowledge of his philosophy is just snippets I've read here and there, I won't make a definitive statement.

Here's a relevant image for you. Vinegar tasters.
One says it's bitter. The other one says it's sour. The third one says it merely tastes like vinegar.
No. 51035
>No experience is fundamentally "better" or "worse" than another, they're all just sensations.
If I take a blowtorch to your balls, I doubt you'll maintain that position for long.

You take the philosophical alienation thing too far. At a level beyond embodied human consciousness, it's true that you can't necessarily categorize one feeling or another as "good" or "bad". But we are human, and your experience of reality is inseparable from that reality. I can't think of an appropriate word, but intellectualizing beyond that is a very high level of "not-doing-it-right" or "not-getting-it" (in my humble opinion).

As regards a more limited version of your position: Yes, suffering is not inherently bad. A life without a certain amount of suffering suffers for it. But there are depths of suffering with no redemptive potential, which can only do lasting harm. Lifting weights strengthens you; ripping your arm off means you're a cripple for life; shooting you in the head means you're dead.
No. 51036
That's a nice theoretical system, but how do you expect it to work?

For starters, how do you put this system into place? This will never be implemented by a standard republican government, and violent revolution privileges centralized and ordered movements that are able and willing to impose their will on others. The anarchists in Spain got BTFO and purged by Stalinists. IIRC, every single successful leftist revolution has resulted in rule by a centralized communist party apparatus.

Why and how will the next time be different?
No. 51037
I always argue the general case, rather than specifying a million exceptions.
You can apply the Principle of Charity and take away the specific meaning yourself.

I think it simplifies the discussion and prevents things from spiraling into hair splitting specifics. Does not mean I myself subscribe to the super general case, it's just more pragmatic to consider things "in isolation", because otherwise nothing can be productively discussed.

just my style, though, you might disagree.
No. 51061 Kontra
Organization of the working class and general strike.

Also, don't appeal to status quo as evidence of merit. The assumptions of the capitalist order are every bit as absurd, if not more so than many socialist ones, it's just that Capital has managed a great PR campaign and tricked people into thinking it's the default. Likewise, why will the next attempt at moderate liberal democracy work? Every other time it's been tried you end up with literal fascism or an oligarchy. It's not really a great track record, and it's had a lot more cracks at it.