What does it mean to live the good life?

[Lion IRC]

Attempting to get some classic forum conversation going for a while.
The question: what does it mean to live the good life?

A few assumptions to set up the conversation:

• Life has no objective purpose
• Morality is subjective
• The natural world is all that can be known

If these are the starting assumptions then..."Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die."

Given that, how would you define the 'good' life, and what principles should guide us through our lives and why?

Epicureanism. Hedonism. Live like there's no tomorrow. Law of the jungle. Survival of the strongest/luckiest.

ETA - 1 more guiding principle. Dont let other ppl tell you what guiding principles you 'ought' to follow.

 

[DBT]

We die regardless of what we believe. Which implies that there is a psychological purpose in believing otherwise, a payoff in believing in a resurrection or reincarnation and all that goes with these beliefs.

 

[rousseau]

Attempting to get some classic forum conversation going for a while.
The question: what does it mean to live the good life?

A few assumptions to set up the conversation:

• Life has no objective purpose
• Morality is subjective
• The natural world is all that can be known

If these are the starting assumptions then..."Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die."

Given that, how would you define the 'good' life, and what principles should guide us through our lives and why?

Epicureanism. Hedonism. Live like there's no tomorrow. Law of the jungle. Survival of the strongest/luckiest.

ETA - 1 more guiding principle. Dont let other ppl tell you what guiding principles you 'ought' to follow.

I've never found hedonism particularly appealing, and I think the philosophy of someone like Ayn Rand demonstrates why. It's the is/ought problem - we can't get an 'ought' from an 'is'. In other words, 'take whatever we can get, try to win and acquire power' isn't so much an ethical philosophy, but a strategy that follows from objective reality.

To me the 'good' life needs to be disconnected from logic, and objective reality. Something internally derived. Principles that we follow because we deeply believe in them.

For me it is the very rejection of logic that gives my life meaning. The ability to act how I want regardless of the material incentives involved, to treat someone with respect even if they're ignorant, or a jerk. To let myself do things I don't necessarily want to do - because without that kind of thing I'm always a slave to my ego. Or conversely, to let myself do things that I want to do but know I shouldn't. In other words, to live a life without constraints of what I should or shouldn't be doing.

This is something internally derived, not a by-product of reality. I think that's how we find our ultimate meaning and path - forget who we're supposed to be, and figure out who we want to be and what we want to be doing.

 

[abaddon]

I've never found hedonism particularly appealing, and I think the philosophy of someone like Ayn Rand demonstrates why. It's the is/ought problem - we can't get an 'ought' from an 'is'. In other words, 'take whatever we can get, try to win and acquire power' isn't so much an ethical philosophy, but a strategy that follows from objective reality.

I don't know how objectivism and hedonism became conflated in your mind. I know how it happened in Lion IRC's mind... christians have been lashing at hedonism with bullshit propaganda for 2 millennia.

"I am profoundly opposed to the philosophy of hedonism... My philosophy is the opposite of hedonism." ~ Ayn Rand, http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/hedonism.html

"Hedonism is a school of thought that argues seeking pleasure and avoiding suffering are the only components of well-being. Ethical hedonism is the view that combines hedonism with welfarist ethics, which claim that what we should do depends exclusively on what affects the well-being individuals have. Ethical hedonists would defend either increasing pleasure and reducing suffering for all beings capable of experiencing them..." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hedonism

"Although Epicureanism is a form of hedonism insofar as it declares pleasure to be its sole intrinsic goal, the concept that the absence of pain and fear constitutes the greatest pleasure, and its advocacy of a simple life, make it very different from "hedonism" as colloquially understood." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epicureanism

 

[rousseau]

I've never found hedonism particularly appealing, and I think the philosophy of someone like Ayn Rand demonstrates why. It's the is/ought problem - we can't get an 'ought' from an 'is'. In other words, 'take whatever we can get, try to win and acquire power' isn't so much an ethical philosophy, but a strategy that follows from objective reality.

I don't know how objectivism and hedonism became conflated in your mind. I know how it happened in Lion IRC's mind... christians have been lashing at hedonism with bullshit propaganda for 2 millennia.

"I am profoundly opposed to the philosophy of hedonism... My philosophy is the opposite of hedonism." ~ Ayn Rand, http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/hedonism.html

"Hedonism is a school of thought that argues seeking pleasure and avoiding suffering are the only components of well-being. Ethical hedonism is the view that combines hedonism with welfarist ethics, which claim that what we should do depends exclusively on what affects the well-being individuals have. Ethical hedonists would defend either increasing pleasure and reducing suffering for all beings capable of experiencing them..." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hedonism

"Although Epicureanism is a form of hedonism insofar as it declares pleasure to be its sole intrinsic goal, the concept that the absence of pain and fear constitutes the greatest pleasure, and its advocacy of a simple life, make it very different from "hedonism" as colloquially understood." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epicureanism

My post may have needed a bit more elaboration. I was more trying to draw a parallel between the two philosophies using objectivism as a good example of an ought being taken from an is.

Hedonism seems to do the same thing. It isn't a principled philosophy, it's a conclusion drawn from objective reality.

To me living the good life implies some sort of principle or principles that are self derived, not just a logical, conscious extension of what everyone is already doing.

Someone taking more for themselves because that's 'how the world works' seems like the anti-thesis of a moral philosophy.

 

[abaddon]

What you're saying contradicts the descriptions of hedonism. You have the idea it's an is/ought fallacy by conflating psychological hedonism and ethical hedonism.

Psychological Hedonism is the view that humans are psychologically constructed in such a way that we exclusively desire pleasure. Ethical Hedonism, on the other hand, is the view that our fundamental moral obligation is to maximize pleasure or happiness. It is the normative claim that we should always act so as to produce our own pleasure.

https://www.philosophybasics.com/branch_hedonism.html

It's ethical hedonism that the phrase "stop worrying and enjoy your life" represents - which is a normative claim. It's not derived from what people do or R. Dawkins wouldn't have been driving that bus around with the slogan on it. Lion IRC conflated it with short-sighted self-interest. You agreed with the conflation and used it for your "parallel" with objectivism, saying they're both is/ought fallacies.

Read the link, it has more on the philosophies that got mixed together into a stew: what Egoism is ("the claim that individuals should always seek their own good in all things") and what Epicureanism is ("[a moderate approach which] seeks to maximize happiness, but which defines happiness more as a state of tranquillity than pleasure").

I see no good in "a good life" that's based on self-interest either. Which is why I admire Epicurean hedonism. It's about simple living, mutuality, and a prudent approach to finding joy.

Christianity has a 2000 year history of lies regarding hedonistic philosophies, and it's had its ugly effect on people's ability to understand and discuss them. Whether in agreement with hedonism or not, it deserves an evenhanded presentation before criticism.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

Attempting to get some classic forum conversation going for a while.
The question: what does it mean to live the good life?

A few assumptions to set up the conversation:

• Life has no objective purpose
• Morality is subjective
• The natural world is all that can be known

If these are the starting assumptions then..."Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die."

Given that, how would you define the 'good' life, and what principles should guide us through our lives and why?

Epicureanism. Hedonism. Live like there's no tomorrow. Law of the jungle. Survival of the strongest/luckiest.

ETA - 1 more guiding principle. Dont let other ppl tell you what guiding principles you 'ought' to follow.

Lol Epicureanism isn't pure hedonism. But you're incapable of understanding nuance in any situation.

 

[Lion IRC]

If these are the starting assumptions then..."Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die."




Epicureanism. Hedonism. Live like there's no tomorrow. Law of the jungle. Survival of the strongest/luckiest.

ETA - 1 more guiding principle. Dont let other ppl tell you what guiding principles you 'ought' to follow.

Lol Epicureanism isn't pure hedonism. But you're incapable of understanding nuance in any situation.

Epicureanism is exactly and absolutely the same as pure hedonism

Someone is hearing voices in their head.
But to truly appreciate the nuance, Someone should try reading what I actually said.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

I think the good life is like that writer's expression, “I hate to write. But I love having written.”

Living the good life must certainly be nothing more than having lived enough good moments so that on balance the end result is a large degree of satisfaction with oneself, even if there has been much failure and pain involved.

I agree with the OP, it is pretty much right on the money in how one quantifies and therefore concludes that good life. I would only add that imho a good life is primarily a rational life, from which then naturally flows a large measure of emotional satisfaction.

 

[Lion IRC]

We die regardless of what we believe. Which implies that there is a psychological purpose in believing otherwise, a payoff in believing in a resurrection or reincarnation and all that goes with these beliefs.

The biblical theist / Christian doesn't believe they wont die.
Neither do they believe that salvation (a psychological purpose) is by works alone, carried out before you die.

The atheist/hedonist on the other hand DOES have a psychological purpose insofar as thinking that there's no God(s) nor afterlife, and so their 'works' ought to result in maximal happiness in whatever limited time they have.

If you say the theist deploys belief in God as a palliative, I will say that the atheist likewise deploys disbelief in God as their coping mechanism so to avoid facing any possible connection between God and the way they lived their life.

 

[rousseau]

What you're saying contradicts the descriptions of hedonism. You have the idea it's an is/ought fallacy by conflating psychological hedonism and ethical hedonism.

Psychological Hedonism is the view that humans are psychologically constructed in such a way that we exclusively desire pleasure. Ethical Hedonism, on the other hand, is the view that our fundamental moral obligation is to maximize pleasure or happiness. It is the normative claim that we should always act so as to produce our own pleasure.

https://www.philosophybasics.com/branch_hedonism.html

It's ethical hedonism that the phrase "stop worrying and enjoy your life" represents - which is a normative claim. It's not derived from what people do or R. Dawkins wouldn't have been driving that bus around with the slogan on it. Lion IRC conflated it with short-sighted self-interest. You agreed with the conflation and used it for your "parallel" with objectivism, saying they're both is/ought fallacies.

Read the link, it has more on the philosophies that got mixed together into a stew: what Egoism is ("the claim that individuals should always seek their own good in all things") and what Epicureanism is ("[a moderate approach which] seeks to maximize happiness, but which defines happiness more as a state of tranquillity than pleasure").

I see no good in "a good life" that's based on self-interest either. Which is why I admire Epicurean hedonism. It's about simple living, mutuality, and a prudent approach to finding joy.

Christianity has a 2000 year history of lies regarding hedonistic philosophies, and it's had its ugly effect on people's ability to understand and discuss them. Whether in agreement with hedonism or not, it deserves an evenhanded presentation before criticism.

Should always act to produce our own pleasure seems like it's stating the obvious, and to me sounds like an extension of psychological hedonism. Maybe not such a bad idea in itself, but it seems to lack depth, and con-notates a kind of inward focus. That's mainly what I was getting at with it lacking an ethical quality.

Maybe if we extend 'pleasure' to include everyone else and not just ourselves, but focusing on our own pleasure sounds like what everyone already does intrinsically. Maybe in it's time this made sense as a contrast to religious beliefs and their impact on our behavior, but in the modern age where most of us are already over-indulged, it sounds like it lacks any real ethical quality.

If anything, there's too much hedonism in my community these days. People without any type of restraint or self-control who live without any principles. That's not an argument that religious ideas should have any say in what people do, but rather because people no longer have any over-arching framework to guide them, it seems like it's chaos that guides most of their lives. We spend our lives overspending and being tricked by marketing schemes, and never thinking about our behavior with any level of depth beyond 'take more for myself'.