101–110 of 123 posts
> What does it mean that all of your previous attempts at something have failed? > Nothing! Nothing at all. Don't try skydiving.
If at first you don't succeed, then skydiving isn't for you.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If at first you don't succeed, then skydiving isn't for you.
You don't start skydiving by jumping off a plane by yourself with a parachute that you need to release at a certain altitude. There are intermediary steps and if you don't learn from your own mistakes because "nothing has inherent meaning" you're gonna have a bad time.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's a false dichotomy unless you can actually provide an objective dichotomy against the two types of pleasures you mention. I derive pleasure from saving my money, because I know that earns me some financial security and allows me to buy bigger and cooler things in the future. I derive pleasure from exercise that is physically uncomfortable, because I know there are future benefits. "Utility" is absolutely a better…
> "Utility" is absolutely a better word for this, because "pleasure" often has the connotation of immediate physical euphoria Utility is worthless without getting you something, which is pleasure. I'm just stating it in more fundamental terms than you are, and getting right to the point. Talking about it, intsead, as "utility" is just making it more absract and muddying the waters. And it doesn't matter what connotat…
"Utility" is generally defined to mean getting what one desires. It's not abstract. "Pleasure" could be defined in the same way, and if you're defining it to be synonymous with "utility" then that's your choice, but it usually carries the connotation of immediate sensory euphoria whereas "utility" does not. But I don't understand your criticism of the word "utility."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Under your proposed definition that includes sacrifice and enjoying pain, how is it possible for anyone to not be practicing hedonism? It's by definition impossible to make a choice that is not your preferred choice.
This is the thing - without an external (to ourselves) frame of reference, all actions are equal. Killing someone, or ignoring a beggar on the street, or kissing a friend, are all equal. Whichever gives us pleasure is the best to do. We can easily argue that we only do that which brings us pleasure with the understanding that acting on our personal morals even against our purely animal bodies gives us a greater or 'h…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> "Utility" is absolutely a better word for this, because "pleasure" often has the connotation of immediate physical euphoria Utility is worthless without getting you something, which is pleasure. I'm just stating it in more fundamental terms than you are, and getting right to the point. Talking about it, intsead, as "utility" is just making it more absract and muddying the waters. And it doesn't matter what connotat…
> Utility is worthless without getting you something, which is pleasure. "Utility" is generally defined to mean getting what one desires. It's not abstract. "Pleasure" could be defined in the same way, and if you're defining it to be synonymous with "utility" then that's your choice, but it usually carries the connotation of immediate sensory euphoria whereas "utility" does not. But I don't understand your criticism…
For instance. If you get something you desire, you may feel pleasure, or you may not. Or maybe you'll feel pleasure for a little while, but not as long as you expected to.
Going in the reverse direction, if you feel pleasure, you may have gotten something you desired, but you may not have---e.g. a massage may feel good even if you didn't expect it to beforehand.
When I talk about "pleasure" I do mean something that you experience in the moment---just like "hot" and "cold." You feel it at a particular time, or not. But that does not exclude a long-term experience of pleasure, such as a general state of emotional happiness. In fact, the latter is what I am more interested in.
Some people associate the word "pleasure" with a necessarily temporary and immediate experience, but that is merely a connotation, it is not the definition of the word.
Life is a gift of God, infinitely perfect and blessed in himself, who in a plan of sheer goodness freely created man to make him share in God's own blessed life. For this reason, at every time and in every place, God draws close to man. He calls man to seek him, to know him, to love him with all his strength. He calls together all men, scattered and divided by sin, into the unity of his family, the Church. To accompl…
Curious, are you familiar with the writings of Thomas Merton? Outside of Paradise Lost, the other book that made me realize the Christian leap is not without reason is, "The 7 Story Mountain" Anyway, obviously you are a fully converted Christian, congratulations on your happiness ;-)
From a Catholic perspective, reason and faith necessarily go together and official Church teaching rejects fideism[1] outright. That's not to say that individuals don't experience "leaps of faith", wherein reason and belief may be in tension with one another for brief periods.
Most of my Christian reading these days consists of historical works, treatments of specific topics (e.g. theology of Atonement), and spiritual classics (e.g. Augustine's "Confessions", Scupoli's "Spiritual Combat"[2]).
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fideism#Fideism_rejected_by_the...
I can't understand how any comment that posits the existence of God or objective morality has been downvoted to oblivion, yet comments that suggests that the only meaning (and thus morality) lies in increasing one's own pleasure are rising to the top. I'd also like to add that michaelsbradley's comment way down at the bottom of the page sums up my Christian belief on the meaning of life pretty nicely even though I'm…
Surely you cannot expect a religious argument to do well in a scientific forum.
Fr. Robert Spitzer, S.J.[1] does a fine job of exploring evidence for God's existence from modern science[2]. Many notable scientists were/are persons of faith[3].
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Spitzer_%28priest%29
[2] http://www.amazon.com/New-Proofs-Existence-God-Contributions...
[&] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mkjhxzqr-5k
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Catholic_scientists
Very good video and ideas. "You must have worked really hard at it" Just want to correct the line 'Life is Suffering' when you brought up Buddhism. That sounds sadistic. Buddhist's idea is suffering exists. Which is presented as a fact that can be seen with a rational mind. And life is to be lived in pursuit of eliminating suffering for yourself and others. Just thought, I point this out.
Its not sadistic. Life was full of suffering for vedic nomads who finally settled down in cities. Instead of turing outwards philosophers of that time lie buddha and mahavira turned inwards for comfort.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Utility is worthless without getting you something, which is pleasure. "Utility" is generally defined to mean getting what one desires. It's not abstract. "Pleasure" could be defined in the same way, and if you're defining it to be synonymous with "utility" then that's your choice, but it usually carries the connotation of immediate sensory euphoria whereas "utility" does not. But I don't understand your criticism…
I'm not defining pleasure to mean "getting what one desires," hence it is non synonomous with the definition you are using for "utility." Pleasure is a particular sensation. For instance. If you get something you desire, you may feel pleasure, or you may not. Or maybe you'll feel pleasure for a little while, but not as long as you expected to. Going in the reverse direction, if you feel pleasure, you may have gotten…
Life is overcoming entropy.
So it seems. But life itself is simply sunlight falling to earth if you think about it biochemically. In other words as far as we know, life is a channel for and manifestation of entropy.
Don't you think, that by same extension, car is just Gas/Fuel coming in from a Gas/Fuel station?
I am sorry, but I find most essays on the topic of 'meaning of life' escapist. Or rather answering a different question on how best to live life, with the assumption that the real meaning is unknowable.
None of these essays satisfy my need to know, what it is actually all about.
Talking about this essay, its excellent no doubt. But IMHO its misleading all the same.