#1 |
#2 |
#3 |
Paste this URL into an email or IM: |
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
|
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
|
What are the benefits of asceticism?
| Add New Argument |
|
2
points
Taking away all indulges? No real benifit can result from that. Charity, goodwill, and such are done because people give value to them, or in other words want to. If you cannot enjoy anything, what is the purpose for existence? And if done for religious reasons, is striving to please your deity not a form of desire or indulgence? 1
point
"Taking away all indulges? No real benifit can result from that. " Decadence makes a person soft at the core, the benefits of asceticism are in its ability to re-affirm life by counteracting our desire for pain and despair. "If you cannot enjoy anything," It isn't about being capable of enjoying something, it's about choosing not to be self-indulgent in order to strengthen your will. "And if done for religious reasons, is striving to please your deity not a form of desire or indulgence?" Nobody mentioned anything about a deity. 1
point
Decadence It is my understanding that all forms of indulgence are eliminated in asceticism, not jut excessive or luxurious ones. it's about choosing not to be self-indulgent in order to strengthen your will. Selfish desires are the most vital and neccesary of human existence. Love, happiness, and pleasure are the founding principles of life and should be celebrated, not ignored or refrained from. Nobody mentioned anything about a deity. From what I know ascetism is done more usually for religious purposes. 1
point
"It is my understanding that all forms of indulgence are eliminated in asceticism, not jut excessive or luxurious ones." Yes, but anything that goes beyond ones own needs can be deemed excessive, and thus decadent. "Selfish desires are the most vital and neccesary of human existence." Why? "Love, happiness, and pleasure are the founding principles of life and should be celebrated, not ignored or refrained from." Why? Are you saying the desire to be "happy", the desire for "love", and the desire to seek "pleasure" are the only reasons to be alive? "From what I know ascetism is done more usually for religious purposes." Classically, yes, however, for them asceticism is a vice. 1
point
ones own needs And how does one gauge need? I'd say it is all desires and the struggle to fulfill them. Why? Because it is selfish tendancies that provide the healthiest environments for man and provide the greatest means of fulfilling the things he attributes value to. Why? Are you saying the desire to be "happy", the desire for "love", and the desire to seek "pleasure" are the only reasons to be alive? The fulfillment of one's rational self interest is indeed the fundamental source of man's purpose. 1
point
"And how does one gauge need?" By being aware of your own body. "I'd say it is all desires and the struggle to fulfill them." I would that as a fairly primitive opinion, assuming you mean struggle to satisfy our primitive desires and our animal impulses. "Because it is selfish tendancies that provide the healthiest environments for man and provide the greatest means of fulfilling the things he attributes value to." Even if you're right, which I very much doubt you are as I beleive human interaction is far more complex than that, how is selfishness a prerequisite for existence? You do realise you're inferring that without selfishness the human race would die out, don't you? That's a fairly preseumptuous proposition by anyones reckoning. "The fulfillment of one's rational self interest is indeed the fundamental source of man's purpose." How can you be so certain? 1
point
By being aware of your own body. Even then, how does one gauge need? Where is the distinction between the desires of mind and the desires of the body? assuming you mean struggle to satisfy our primitive desires and our animal impulses. No, I am not advocating whimsical or animalistic action. Rational self interest includes the upholdal of a social contract. how is selfishness a prerequisite for existence? It is quite literally a prerequisite for human existence. Sex is undoubtably as selfish action. You do realise you're inferring that without selfishness the human race would die out, don't you? Not only humanity, but life in general. All life strives for survival. It adapts in response to stimuli in order to preserve its existence. Life is inherently selfish. Even group animals protect each other as a means of survival, not as some natural altruistic measure. The pursuit of survival is the pursuit of self interest, aka rational selfishness. How can you be so certain? Quite simple my friend. I have read Atlas Shrugged ;) 1
point
"Even then, how does one gauge need?" It isn't something that needs to be gauged, it doesn't need to be dissected and then quantified. If you are starving your body will let you know it needs food. "Where is the distinction between the desires of mind and the desires of the body?" Where? The distinction is indeterminate, even among animals it is indeterminate, but especially among thinking animals like us who have developed egos in the course of the evolution of our consciousness. However, I think it really needs to be determinate once common sense is applied. "Rational self interest includes the upholdal of a social contract." Could you please define "social contract", I mean, what does it entail? What I am really asking is what desires do we need to satisfy? "It is quite literally a prerequisite for human existence." I"m not denying that up until this point in our evolution we have required selfishness in order to achieve the level of civilization that we have, in fact, I would argue that we have required far more unsavory traits and characteristics associated with the human condition. However, do you realise when you say it is a prerequisite you automatically preclude the possibility that in the future it may become superfluous, i.e. in the course of our future evolution Or do you believe that life simply cannot exist without it? "Sex is undoubtedly as selfish action." You mean between the adults participating in it? "Not only humanity, but life in general. All life strives for survival. It adapts in response to stimuli in order to preserve its existence. Life is inherently selfish." I don't disagree with any of this, but are you saying this is the way it has to be, and thus always will be? "Quite simple my friend. I have read Atlas Shrugged " Ah yes, the ice queen herself, I have never read her philosophy, in fact I have actively avoided it, although I have read a huge amount of Nietzsche, and her philosophy was (to extent) an attempt to arrange and configure his philosophy into a workable, structured, and comprehensive system of thought, which Nietzsche would have despised I can assure you. Well, that maybe unfair, Nietzsche has a rather existentialist view of reality - there are definitely large differences between them, plus I have never read Rand, so I probably shouldn't be trying to compare the two. 1
point
It isn't something that needs to be gauged, it doesn't need to be dissected and then quantified For the sake of this debate it does. One needs a standard to uphold when discussing the negatives or the benifits of something. If you are starving your body will let you know it needs food Because life is inherently selfish and desires to continue existence. The distinction is indeterminate, I would say that there isn't one at all. common sense Depends on your definition of common sense. For instance, one's definition of common sense would say the theory of gravity is valid, actual knowledge would say it is quite flawed. So by common sense do you mean that it is actually common or is it self evident? social contract Although it really depends on the philosopher, standard social contract theories state that in a state of nature no barrier exists between savage behavior and your life, so people develop societies as a means of protecting themselves.(This is more along the lines of Locke then others) What I am really asking is what desires do we need to satisfy Any and all that we give value too and that do not violate the social contract we follow. far more unsavory When you say "more", are saying selfishness is unsavory? Why must it be so? Keep in mind the parameters of the selfishness I am advocating. However, do you realise when you say it is a prerequisite you automatically preclude the possibility that in the future it may become superfluous, i.e. in the course of our future evolution I do no such thing. I cannot make a claim about the evolutionary future of mankind, I can only describe its current and past condition. Or do you believe that life simply cannot exist without it? As of now, yes(although I would not describe it as a belief which I define as a view held without evidence). Even through lab or other alternative births, human life is created by selfish means. You mean between the adults participating in it? Exactly. Ah yes, the ice queen herself I see it as brutal honesty, which is something I deeply respect in an individual. I have never read her philosophy, in fact I have actively avoided it, One should never avoid that which may make him question the status quo of his views. although I have read a huge amount of Nietzsche, and her philosophy was (to extent) an attempt to arrange and configure his philosophy into a workable, structured, and comprehensive system of thought, which Nietzsche would have despised I can assure you. As a coincidence perhaps, but her philosophy was by no means an attempt to work off of Nietzsche. She has made her inspirations and foundations quite clear. so I probably shouldn't be trying to compare the two. I am no expert on Nietzsche, but if their philosophies correlate in any way, it must be due to using Aristole as a starting point. 1
point
"One needs a standard to uphold when discussing the negatives or the benefits of something." I agree, but this resides outside the domain of rational inquiry, i.e. it is not determinate That doesn't mean it cannot be gauged, it simply means it cannot be gauged accurately, again, applying a little common sense can easily show the way. "Because life is inherently selfish and desires to continue existence. " This attempt to define life by its function is highly unsatisfactory to me. Existence is not predicated on its function, the function explains nothing, it merely allows you to understand what life in general is, i.e. how to differentiate it from non-living things You cannot explain the existence of something via its inherent qualities, even one as fundamental as selfishness which can be considered a function/product of our evolution - this almost sounds like it should be a logical fallacy of some kind but I know it isn't because it is steeped in too much existentialist thought. "I would say that there isn't one at all." Most distinctions are man made, just look at the sciences, you think nature makes such distinctions? Existence is an undifferentiated continuum, you may well be right, there may be no pre-existing natural distinction between the two, besides it's irrelevant, we can easily create such a distinction on a pro-forma basis, it will have as much meaning as any other we have created. We have constructed our entire world around differentiating things and giving them names - thereby allowing us to comprehend them and assimilate them into our minds. Man is the ultimate taxonomist, that reminds of me Ernest Rutherford's famous quote. "So by common sense do you mean that it is actually common or is it self evident?" I would say it is self evident to some people, but it may not be to others, it depends primarily on how greedy you are I would say, e.g. it seems self evident to me that circumstances should not allow one man to commandeer 99% of all the worlds resources "standard social contract theories state that in a state of nature no barrier exists between savage behavior and your life, so people develop societies as a means of protecting themselves." Yes, I agree completely, that is exactly how civilisation has evolved, however I do not believe that provides adequate grounds for believing rational self interest is the most important human virtue, if you can call it that. "When you say "more", are saying selfishness is unsavory? " Yes. "Why must it be so? " Well, it means where one person gains another must lose, assuming a closed system with finite resources, which is our current reality. "Keep in mind the parameters of the selfishness I am advocating." You seem to be advocating a social hierarchy in keeping with philosophers and theorists who laid the foundations of modern society in the West, i.e. Hobbes, Locke etc. "I do no such thing. I cannot make a claim about the evolutionary future of mankind, I can only describe its current and past condition. " Correct me if I'm wrong but when you make the statement: "It is quite literally a prerequisite for human existence", you are taking an absolutist position on the past, present, and future of mankind. "You mean between the adults participating in it? Exactly. " So you believe love is simply a selfish battle for superiority between a man and a woman? "I see it as brutal honesty, which is something I deeply respect in an individual. " As do I, that doesn't mean I agree with her philosophy. "One should never avoid that which may make him question the status quo of his views." Believe me, I don't, there are just many other philosophers I would prefer to read, I have a fairly good idea what she advocates already, and I have a copy of Atlas Shrugged waiting to be read, I will read it in good time. "As a coincidence perhaps," No, Nietzsche had a massive influence on her philosophy. "but her philosophy was by no means an attempt to work off of Nietzsche." To an extent, it was, she most definitely tried to assimilate some of Nietzsche's most fundamental insights into her system, in way that would probably have infuriated him. "She has made her inspirations and foundations quite clear." I agree: "At the university she was introduced to the writings of Aristotle and Plato,[10] who would form two of her greatest influences and counter-influences, respectively.[11] A third figure whose philosophical works she studied heavily was Friedrich Nietzsche." Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayn_Rand Also, the main themes of her second most well known work: the Fountainhead, where virtually Nietzschean, at least it seems that way from what read (i.e. http://philosophy.wisc.edu/hunt/ "but if their philosophies correlate in any way, it must be due to using Aristole as a starting point." Actually, Rands reliance on the Aristotelean system in structuring her philosophy was probably her biggest point of departure from Nietzsche's philosophy. 1
point
This attempt to define life by its function is highly unsatisfactory to me Pardon? The statement was a response to what you said regarding the bodies inherent desire for food. you may well be right You have an annoying habit(at least in the realm of debate) of eliminating the debate by conceding too much of the opposing argument. however I do not believe that provides adequate grounds for believing rational self interest is the most important human virtue The social contract is but a symptom of rational self interest. "Because it is selfish tendencies that provide the healthiest environments for man and provide the greatest means of fulfilling the things he attributes value to. " Well, it means where one person gains another must lose, assuming a closed system with finite resources, which is our current reality. And why is the action of one gaining over another inherently bad? Correct me if I'm wrong but when you make the statement: "It is quite literally a prerequisite for human existence", you are taking an absolutist position on the past, present, and future of mankind. Past and present yes, but I cannot predict evolutionary changes in the future that may render us capable of say, asexual reproduction. Until that happens(and perhaps even after that), sex stands as a selfish act. So you believe love is simply a selfish battle for superiority between a man and a woman? While it certainly can be, I am saying the drive, strive, and action to fulfill the value that is sexual pleasure is a selfish one. I will read it in good time. Good to hear. No, Nietzsche had a massive influence on her philosophy I went back through some essays of hers, and it seems you were right. second most well known work: the Fountainhead, Anthem actually, but only because school curriculum now includes in in their freshmen reading lists. I would like to apologize if my response here seems overly lacking. It is hard to take a long break from this site and jump right into a debate with a intelligent individual while maintaining the quality of arguments. |
