Life has no meaning other than our own pleasure and suffering

Discussion in 'General Philosophy' started by MattMVS7, Nov 10, 2014.

  1. youreyes amorphous ocean Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,830
    But what is the conclusion of all this? That we are egoistical self loving emotional beings and love is just there to suit our own needs?
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. StrangerInAStrangeLand SubQuantum Mechanic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,396
    This would be hilarious if only it weren't so tragic that people actually delude themselves into believing such due to THEIR fear & insecurity. I have no fear & even if I did, it would not affect the fact that I am unable to believe in something I do not know exists & which IF it did exist, it evidently is afraid to come out of hiding & show itself. I have known many atheists & the vast majority are not afraid of life or death or fairy tales of afterlife. It is theists who are so fearful, they must cling to make believe to convince themselves they are safe from the Boogie Man.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. StrangerInAStrangeLand SubQuantum Mechanic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,396
    For anything to have meaning, it must have meaning to a conscious being. As far as we can tell, there is no inherent meaning yet that is not contradicted by people giving their lives meaning by doing and/or supporting things which they find meaningful.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. MattMVS7 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    260
    Now you might also be thinking that, since it is in our evolutionary design to find meaning in life in order to survive and benefit our survival, that to even perceive this as delusional would contradict our evolutionary design and would be a delusional viewpoint in of itself in terms of evolution as a result. But this would be false because the only way for it to contradict our evolutionary design is if we were to tell ourselves the message that "We are not designed by evolution to find meaning in our lives." That would be the only message that would contradict our evolutionary design. Telling ourselves that "We are delusional in finding meaning in our lives" does not contradict our evolutionary design.

    Finally, even Stephen Hawking himself has stated that philosophy is dead and that science is all there is. The viewpoints that others have regarding that you can find your own personal meanings in life and that this would not be delusional, these are philosophical viewpoints which would actually be "dead" (false):

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technolo...-Hawking-tells-Google-philosophy-is-dead.html
     
  8. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,355
    In a way, probably. Subconsciously rather consciously, though. Just ask yourself why you do anything you do, and at some level it will be because it makes you feel better, and the choice is a judgement of risk / reward / time-frame... do we forgo a short-term reward for longer-term, do we undergo a period of pain for the longer-term satisfaction, that sort of thing.
    And yes, love is there to suit our own needs: we fall in love because it satisfies, subconsciously as well as consciously, certain desires and instincts we may have. Which is why it often hurts when that love is left unrequited, because we have, in a way, allocated that desire-fulfilling role to the object of our love, and invested part of ourselves in them for the longer term happiness... and if they do not love back then we know that the desire will be left unfulfilled - at least until we reallocate.
    It's a rather cold way of looking at it, but is in context to the thread title / OP etc.
     
    cluelusshusbund likes this.
  9. cosmictotem Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    748
    You might want to ask : "why do we sometimes insist on pleasure? Why can't we just aim at being content?"

    Extravagant pleasure is like a dream. It's hit or miss depending on so many factors out of our control. But if you are clever you can carve out a niche of relatively steady contentment for yourself amid the pitfalls of our poorly developed society.
     
  10. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,602
    I disagree. I don't think the REASON someone gives up their seat or gives a few bucks to a homeless person or buys a really expensive gift for their loved one is to give themselves pleasure. The REASON is other-directed and for the benefit of that other person. You may derive a momentary sense of vicarious pleasure from doing this for them, but that quickly passes and is not the focus of the action. And that being happy FOR them is not a selfish kind of pleasure to begin with. It is wholly identified with their own pleasure on receiving the help. You did it to benefit them, and sacrificed your own needs for their own. It was a truly atruistic action, not a ruse to wallow in your own self-satisfaction.
     
  11. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,355
    I disagree.
    Yes, you can argue the reason is that the other person was in need, but the cause of you acting rather than not is your internal weights and balances triggering your movements.
    I also don't disagree that the level of pleasure between the one performing the action and the one receiving the benefit is likely to be different, often vastly different. But your own personal judgement would be based not just on your momentary discomfort, or the momentary pleasure you might get, but also on such things as how guilty you may feel if you don't.
    If you only look at the pleasure gained by one and the pleasure gained by the other then you are not assessing the correct things, as I see it: it is the loss and pleasure of the one performing the action that should be measured in determining whether an act is altruistic.

    You might justify your decision as that it benefits them, and you certainly sacrificed some of your own needs. But you would subconsciously sacrifice just enough to balance the rewards you get, short or long term, according to your own balance of such things.
    You give change to the homeless because there is no real loss to you and the rewards are quite possibly low as well, even just those few moments of satisfaction might be enough to balance. But if you followed your argument you would soon be helping every single person on the street, you would soon have no money of your own, because the aim is the benefit of the one you are helping.
    And buying an expensive gift for a loved one is far from altruistic: if you do not derive pleasure from the pleasure of your loved one then are they really a loved one?
    I'm not arguing that the only reason is so that you are the only beneficiary of your act, but from your actions you either stave off guilt, derive long term pleasure from the happiness of the other, or it makes you directly happy, and these over both the short and long term balance the loss of what you give up.
    That at least is my view. Whatever you want to argue the significant cause / REASON is is neither here nor there - it is the action itself I am referring to, and what causes these within the self.
     
  12. elte Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,345
    A general thing about pleasure is that focusing too much on it has a psychological effect of making the bad times feel worse, which is akin to what Cosmictotem said. I'm reminded of the ascetics and stoics in ancient times. The ascetics tried to avoid pleasure, and the stoics tried to not think about it.
     
    Last edited: Nov 22, 2014
  13. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,602
    Actually the cause of my action is the reason I acted. I would not have acted if I didn't conceive a reason for me to do it. And the reason was to help somebody else, not myself.

    I'm not avoiding guilt by giving a handout to a homeless person. Their lack of a dollar isn't going to cause them any more suffering than it causes me suffering. But it DOES let them get a cup of coffee if they want it. It provides them a moment of pleasure just as it would provide me with the same. I am willingly giving up that pleasure for them. A minute after I give them the money I won't think about that person again. So the act WAS selfless.

    There is no guilt either if I don't get my loved one an expensive gift. I'm going out of my way to do something special. It is not obligatory of me in the least. But I make a special effort because I want them to experience joy and pleasure. That's not selfish. It is taking pleasure in someone else's pleasure allright. But it is the pleasure of love and empathy, not of satisfying our own needs.

    Yes..we base the action on the reasoned out anticipation that it will benefit them. That is why we do it. It is an act of true empathy for that person, for their sufferings and their desperate circumstances.

    I'm not so naive as to think I'm suddenly this good person just because I help out a homeless person. I don't reflect upon that at all. The focus is on helping out the person, and the vicarious pleasure I feel in their being happy to receive my gift. That pleasure I take in THEIR pleasure is only something extra. It is not the motivator to why I do it. I do it help them out. And that is a truly selfless act.


    Ofcourse they are. Doing something extra for a loved one isn't a duty of loving them. You can love them in many other ways besides giving them something special.

    But there's no guilt in not doing something special for someone. There might be guilt in not doing the routine and the expected--the sending of a card, or calling them. But giving them more than what is expected is a sacrifice you choose to make for them. You do it because their happiness means more to you than your own pleasure in fulfilling your own needs. It's all about love, an inherently other-directed motivation.
     
  14. wellwisher Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,160
    Humans have two centers of consciousness. We have ego consciousness (Jungian definition) which is the center of the conscious mind. We also have the inner self which is the center of the unconscious mind. The inner self is connected to nature and human DNA and is not the place of depression and woe. It is is the place of life and hope. The estimate is we use 10% of he brain. That is for the ego. The inner self uses 90%.

    The ego center is what causes problems to ways of life, because it uses will power and choice to place unnatural limits on the inner self, which is designed by the DNA to be natural; natural evolution. This causes internal pressures and potentials that can create discontent or worse. Religions, although not obvious even to the religious, are systems that were designed to maintain a better inner self energy balance, in light of the pitfalls of choice and free will. The inner voice and inner spirit is connected to the inner self. The ego is connected to the "social world".

    Picture the inner self as a mighty river that flows to the ocean moving water from rain and storms. It also provides life to all that touches the river. The ego through willpower and choice can build dams in the flow and divert this energy into areas of our choice. It is similar to sublimation of natural into cultural analogies. There is a balance that one needs to create, to be happy, less the damming of the river become destructive to the walls of the ego. Woe and lack of meaning appear as a signal to remove walls and return to life.

    As a younger man, I did unconscious mind experiments on myself and learned to dammed up the river to make more sublimated use of its potential for energy, vitality and to induce strong observational dynamics; repressions signals and symbols. I did not anticipate that the river would continued to back up behind my walls/dam and then over these walls until they could not handle the pressure. One day the pressure of the reservoir spilled over the dam and with the raging rapids breaking down its walls.

    My ego-centric walls needed to come down so the flow could return to natural. I fought the change, trying to repair the breaks, until the dam broke and I was swept up in the flood waters. The ego can give up the fight; find rest, or it can continue to fight and swim with no end in sight. Eventually the flood stops and the river returns to its calm normal. The dam was no longer there, while the flood dredged deep valleys in the old river bed, and went over the edge of the old river to create interesting geology for its future flow. I became more shell shocked to creating ego-centric damming again; became self less, until I found a way to create a better balance; inner self centric. I let the inner self make the walls for my ego. This pops up new idea all the time and allows solution to challenges; organic.
     
    Last edited: Nov 23, 2014
  15. madethesame Banned Banned

    Messages:
    411
    i suppose their is meaning in the Consciousness. you witness and that is thing other than pleasure and suffering.
    this consciousness is not immediately found as it is under pleasures. The indepth pleasure in sex and lust will help to know this consciousness.
     
  16. Amar Nath Reu Be your own guru Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    115
    "Life has no meaning other than our own pleasure and suffering"

    And you are not an island. Your pleasure and suffering is tied to the pleasure and suffering of others.


     
    cluelusshusbund likes this.

Share This Page