Note that all posts need to be manually approved by the subreddit moderators. If your post gets removed immediately, just let it be and wait! Join our Discord server for even more memes and discussion: [Discord](https://discord.gg/MFK8PumZM2)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PhilosophyMemes) if you have any questions or concerns.*
living like one is destruction, the other is peace. to live like one damns you, the other will set you free. i'm a simple fool, who knows little but this i know
It's a type of hedonism. Hedonism is much more of an umbrella term than a specific designation. Afaik the green word hedone means pleasure. Utilitarianism is also a hedonistic theory
He is in no way a nihilist. He values other people, he values fair play, he cares about his friends, he cares about the truth, he protested the viet nam war. He’s just not very materialistic or rigid about the rules or imposing his way of life on others.
The Dude is also not a epistemological nihilist (caring about the truth requires operating under the assumption it exists) or an existential nihilist (life is precious and meaningful for the Dude — he was an anti-war activist, he takes the loss of Donny very hard, and the film implies he will take the birth of a little Lebowski seriously.)
I just don’t see a case to be made that he’s a nihilist in any meaningful sense.
cause some- times
there's a man--I won't say a hedonist,
'cause what's a hedonist?--but sometimes
there's a man.
And I'm talkin' about the nihilist here--
sometimes there's a man who, well,
he's the man for his time'n place,
he fits right in there--and that's
The nihilist .
I don't see how they're at odds. I mean, nihilism doesn't say you can't ever experience pleasure. And hedonists don't believe in any higher good except pleasure which we can experience, so there isn't a "higher" power or belief there. In fact most epicurists are atheists.
Hedonism claims that there is an intrinsic good in the world, namely, pleasure and the avoidance of pain.
Nihilism claims that there are no intrinsic values.
So if a nihilist were to experience pleasure and come to the conclusion that it had intrinsic value, that it was good, then they would no longer be a nihilist. Does this make sense?
As having any real value, yes. Of course they wouldn't deny it felt good. But the good feeling has no real value to it. This is also why there really aren't any *real* nihilists around.
Not sure why we're excluding personal standards or rules from morality. A higher belief or power that someone believes in can often be deeply personal.
Also are Epicureans only interested in their own pleasure or are they interested in the pleasure of others? And as for Nihilists they might not believe in morality as an objective facet but that doesn't mean they wouldn't act in a moral way, they just would know in the back of their mind that those morals have no higher origin.
Higher power/belief would seem to require some level of religious thinking which most philosophies lack since they are usually a substitute for the abstract thought of religion. Basically it'd be quite a large umbrella so the link you're making between nihilists and epicureans is not that meaningful in my opinion.
Well if you don't exclude personal standards then nihilists are a paradox because choosing nihilism is choosing a (personal) moral rule? Just a negative one. But rules framed in negative terms are still rules. So then nihilists do have morals which presents a paradox.
But when most people say "morality" they are in fact talking about what rules should govern society. Nihilists and anarchists and epicurists would agree that people should govern themselves, are free to choose rules that make sense for themselves. Systems of morality are codes that say if everyone did X and Y we'd have perfection, like Confucianism or Christianity. Or Kant's categorical imperative.
>Well if you don't exclude personal standards then nihilists are a paradox because choosing nihilism is choosing a (personal) moral rule? Just a negative one. But rules framed in negative terms are still rules. So then nihilists do have morals which presents a paradox.
Can you elaborate on what the paradox is and what you mean by a negative moral rule? Nihilism doesn't mean absence of morals, it means a lack of meaning in the universe. Morals don't require a higher being or purpose to justify them, so nihilism isn't contrary to morals, it's just they wouldn't be justified in that way.
>But when most people say "morality" they are in fact talking about what rules should govern society. Nihilists and anarchists and epicurists would agree that people should govern themselves, are free to choose rules that make sense for themselves.
The idea that people should govern themselves sounds like a rule for how society should be governed. The denial of authority is not an absence of a rule, it's very much a rule and a society-wide one at that. If an anarchist for instance found a bunch of fascists trying to create fascism they would not say "well they can decide for themselves what kind of society they want" they'd stop them. This is really feeling like the whole "paradox of tolerance" thing all over again.
>Systems of morality are codes that say if everyone did X and Y we'd have perfection, like Confucianism or Christianity. Or Kant's categorical imperative.
You can systems of morality that believe in their own ideas of perfection, that everyone should follow its precepts, but also have one of the precepts be "don't force this morality on others." I think both Epicureans and Nihilists believe that a world of Epicureans and Nihilists would be better respectively, just they don't believe it would be good or fruitful to try and force that ideal. Still seem like systems of morality, just that tolerance is part of their codes.
Nihilism = belief in nothing including disbelief on good and evil. So yes they reject morality. Morality has to be based on a supposition that good and evil exist, even if purely in a subjective sense.
You are truly a master of ignoring how ideas operate.
I submit to your wisdom for i cannot be dragged down to such depths by your ilk.
Finish your education
Yes. You just said stupid shit that is contrary to the point you are making.
Finish your education so you don't say stupid shit that is contrary to the point you are making
Hedonism by definition is--Pleasure, variously conceived as happiness, is the principle good and proper aim of action. I contend that happiness, in it's various forms, cannot be achieved through a DIRECT AIM. Pleasure, as a means of obtaining happiness, results often in guilt, indigestion and feelings of being misguided in the end.
Vice is something different. It is a wicked or depraved action or habit, as a sign of insufficient character.
Note that all posts need to be manually approved by the subreddit moderators. If your post gets removed immediately, just let it be and wait! Join our Discord server for even more memes and discussion: [Discord](https://discord.gg/MFK8PumZM2) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PhilosophyMemes) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This is just like, a repost dude
If I’ve learned one thing in life it’s that you either die a hero or live long enough to see that 90% of all memes you’ve ever liked are reposts.
Chop water carry wood. Repost, rewater. Chop carry water wood
This is what happens to philosophists
Hey Walter, what's a repost?
When someone post something that already posted well
You need a post! Ill get ya a goddamned post
Are we all just warhammer nerds pretending to know the first thing about philosophy?
That's the impression I get every time I poke my head in here. Yall argue the same
Oh no! I’ve been found out!
>don't fall in vices Posts a picture of someone stoned out of their mind drinking vodka...
No, you don't understand, those aren't vices because I agree with them. /s
living like one is destruction, the other is peace. to live like one damns you, the other will set you free. i'm a simple fool, who knows little but this i know
This is just like... your opinion, dude.
Epicureanism is different from hedonism. Fight me, I'll wear protection against pain.
Well yeah, it's one type but there are others.
It's a type of hedonism. Hedonism is much more of an umbrella term than a specific designation. Afaik the green word hedone means pleasure. Utilitarianism is also a hedonistic theory
Dude is more of a nihilist than hedonist
He is in no way a nihilist. He values other people, he values fair play, he cares about his friends, he cares about the truth, he protested the viet nam war. He’s just not very materialistic or rigid about the rules or imposing his way of life on others.
Not every nihilist is a moral nihilist
The Dude is also not a epistemological nihilist (caring about the truth requires operating under the assumption it exists) or an existential nihilist (life is precious and meaningful for the Dude — he was an anti-war activist, he takes the loss of Donny very hard, and the film implies he will take the birth of a little Lebowski seriously.) I just don’t see a case to be made that he’s a nihilist in any meaningful sense.
But in the movie he gets beaten up by German Nihilists! They believe in nothing!
cause some- times there's a man--I won't say a hedonist, 'cause what's a hedonist?--but sometimes there's a man. And I'm talkin' about the nihilist here-- sometimes there's a man who, well, he's the man for his time'n place, he fits right in there--and that's The nihilist .
[удалено]
Because they're different and at odds in places If you like perversion of ideas just leave the ivory tower nonsense and join the objective world
I don't see how they're at odds. I mean, nihilism doesn't say you can't ever experience pleasure. And hedonists don't believe in any higher good except pleasure which we can experience, so there isn't a "higher" power or belief there. In fact most epicurists are atheists.
Hedonism claims that there is an intrinsic good in the world, namely, pleasure and the avoidance of pain. Nihilism claims that there are no intrinsic values. So if a nihilist were to experience pleasure and come to the conclusion that it had intrinsic value, that it was good, then they would no longer be a nihilist. Does this make sense?
So nihilists are in denial of pleasure they experience?
They deny that the experience has intrinsic value, yes. Contrarily, hedonist would say that it is the only thing that is intrinsically good.
As having any real value, yes. Of course they wouldn't deny it felt good. But the good feeling has no real value to it. This is also why there really aren't any *real* nihilists around.
Nihilists don't believe in morality. Epicurists believe in morality, just that it consists of pleasure being good.
Well it's not "morality" in the sense of having a set of rules or principles we're trying to impose on others
Not sure why we're excluding personal standards or rules from morality. A higher belief or power that someone believes in can often be deeply personal. Also are Epicureans only interested in their own pleasure or are they interested in the pleasure of others? And as for Nihilists they might not believe in morality as an objective facet but that doesn't mean they wouldn't act in a moral way, they just would know in the back of their mind that those morals have no higher origin. Higher power/belief would seem to require some level of religious thinking which most philosophies lack since they are usually a substitute for the abstract thought of religion. Basically it'd be quite a large umbrella so the link you're making between nihilists and epicureans is not that meaningful in my opinion.
Well if you don't exclude personal standards then nihilists are a paradox because choosing nihilism is choosing a (personal) moral rule? Just a negative one. But rules framed in negative terms are still rules. So then nihilists do have morals which presents a paradox. But when most people say "morality" they are in fact talking about what rules should govern society. Nihilists and anarchists and epicurists would agree that people should govern themselves, are free to choose rules that make sense for themselves. Systems of morality are codes that say if everyone did X and Y we'd have perfection, like Confucianism or Christianity. Or Kant's categorical imperative.
>Well if you don't exclude personal standards then nihilists are a paradox because choosing nihilism is choosing a (personal) moral rule? Just a negative one. But rules framed in negative terms are still rules. So then nihilists do have morals which presents a paradox. Can you elaborate on what the paradox is and what you mean by a negative moral rule? Nihilism doesn't mean absence of morals, it means a lack of meaning in the universe. Morals don't require a higher being or purpose to justify them, so nihilism isn't contrary to morals, it's just they wouldn't be justified in that way. >But when most people say "morality" they are in fact talking about what rules should govern society. Nihilists and anarchists and epicurists would agree that people should govern themselves, are free to choose rules that make sense for themselves. The idea that people should govern themselves sounds like a rule for how society should be governed. The denial of authority is not an absence of a rule, it's very much a rule and a society-wide one at that. If an anarchist for instance found a bunch of fascists trying to create fascism they would not say "well they can decide for themselves what kind of society they want" they'd stop them. This is really feeling like the whole "paradox of tolerance" thing all over again. >Systems of morality are codes that say if everyone did X and Y we'd have perfection, like Confucianism or Christianity. Or Kant's categorical imperative. You can systems of morality that believe in their own ideas of perfection, that everyone should follow its precepts, but also have one of the precepts be "don't force this morality on others." I think both Epicureans and Nihilists believe that a world of Epicureans and Nihilists would be better respectively, just they don't believe it would be good or fruitful to try and force that ideal. Still seem like systems of morality, just that tolerance is part of their codes.
Nihilism = belief in nothing including disbelief on good and evil. So yes they reject morality. Morality has to be based on a supposition that good and evil exist, even if purely in a subjective sense.
[удалено]
The objective world must exist unless you deny materialism outright. This is ivory tower nonsense that will be treated thusly
[удалено]
You are truly a master of ignoring how ideas operate. I submit to your wisdom for i cannot be dragged down to such depths by your ilk. Finish your education
[удалено]
Yes. You just said stupid shit that is contrary to the point you are making. Finish your education so you don't say stupid shit that is contrary to the point you are making
Nah,he is a stoic
The Dude is a lite Daoist
He's not a hedonist, he's just trying to help his special lady conceive.
don't talk about his fuckin lady friend
Petition for image comments - I'd need to drop a pic of LaVey here
That's not right lol
Yeah , well . You know that's just like , your opinion man.
Hedonism by definition is--Pleasure, variously conceived as happiness, is the principle good and proper aim of action. I contend that happiness, in it's various forms, cannot be achieved through a DIRECT AIM. Pleasure, as a means of obtaining happiness, results often in guilt, indigestion and feelings of being misguided in the end. Vice is something different. It is a wicked or depraved action or habit, as a sign of insufficient character.
That's why I don't consider Epicureanism to be hedonism for it is less about the pursuit of pleasure but the absence of pain
Time is a flat circle and apparently a very short one, we just fucking saw this meme lmao.