Living a "hedonistic" life is less risky.

[Such Irony]

i think it depends on the sorts of things you are referring to. travel & other fun experiences--yes, do it now but i'd still save money too. i don't agree with work, work, work and wait until you retire to have fun. you could get hit by a bus tomorrow. but...consistently doing things like drugs, overeating, risky sex--just might kill you, so no thanks. also, if you don't save anything and just rack up debt you could have big problems down the road. different people find pleasure in different things. a large screen plasma tv that costs several grand--please no, i'd go travel the world rather than sit on my butt watching reruns.

Yes to this. I keep a balance between doing what I want now and making sure it doesn't negatively impact me down the road. Sometimes the instant pleasure isn't worth it if it could potentially lead to dangerous consequence. I care not only about pleasure now but my ability to experience pleasure in the future. I want to evenly spread the pleasure around, not just use it all up now and suffer for it later.

I think a lot of people are not introspective. They just follow rules of life without ever really stopping to think about what it's all about. If they did, they wouldn't work so hard for some kind of a "reward" that doesn't exist. I think that a life completely full of pleasure can be just as empty as living life for the future. Everyone can achieve their own true happiness, it's just about finding the right balance.

So true.

 

[Lark]

I think a lot of people are not introspective. They just follow rules of life without ever really stopping to think about what it's all about. If they did, they wouldn't work so hard for some kind of a "reward" that doesn't exist. I think that a life completely full of pleasure can be just as empty as living life for the future. Everyone can achieve their own true happiness, it's just about finding the right balance.

I think your avatar has a brilliant point to make about hedonism or defering gratification if each just means accumulating things.

 

[King sns]

I think your avatar has a brilliant point to make about hedonism or defering gratification if each just means accumulating things.

haha. I was actually thinking that recently. I wondered if avatars in general colored posts a different shade.

 

[Lark]

haha. I was actually thinking that recently. I wondered if avatars in general colored posts a different shade.

I actually really like it in a global sense, I think I'd like to steal it or keep it for future reference it kind of illustrates the materialistic dilemma. Buy it now, buy it later amounts to the same thing.

 

[tinker683]

I dunno, I think the hedonists need us Grumpy Gus's in order to give them an environment in which they can be hedonistic in.

Parties don't just clean up after themselves ya know...

I mean, yeah, it's good to cut up and let go every now and then, I just don't see a predominantly hedonistic lifestyle as being sustainable in the long term.

 

[Rail Tracer]

You know what I want to do? All I want to do is be able to chill. Being hedonistic and wanting everything is way down the road somewhere. With all the stuff the world has to offer these days, people need to learn to slow down. It means nothing to me to be really rich or have the latest gadgets and gizmos.

As long as basic necessities are covered (living expenses with a DECENT living place[car+car insurance, health+health insurance, no ghetto living quarters,] and being able to eat well and not be overworked to death,) I'll do just fine.

I really don't even know if I'll be the type of person to live until I am that old anyways. Probably the only way to make me live that old is children or grandchildren, but I don't think I'll be close to a child until I'm at my 30's.

 

[Sniffles]

'
A balance needs to be stricken.

Indeed, and that's exactly what religious dogma teaches. Asceticism is often based on the presumption of the good of everyday pleasures, but sacrificing them for a higher purpose.

 

[KDude]

You know what I want to do? All I want to do is be able to chill. Being hedonistic and wanting everything is way down the road somewhere. With all the stuff the world has to offer these days, people need to learn to slow down. It means nothing to me to be really rich or have the latest gadgets and gizmos.

That's all I want too. I'm hardly materialistic. I consider myself low maintenance, I guess.

But I would call this hedonism as well. I'm trying to just enjoy myself. I don't need to think about the future too much, or all of this philosophical, political, and religious stuff that means nothing right now. I'm tired of it. And I'm tired of people who try to guilt and meddle with others about it too. That's the extent of my hedonistic attitude.

 

[pickledoctopus]

Yes but I see no balance at all being stricken in the live for today consumerist philosophy at hand in the OP.

What is baseless about religious dogma? What you call dogma I may call heritage, legacies and time honoured, and more importantly time tested, tradition.

The traditions of many of the world religions are not being invalidated by most innovative research but rather their veracity is vindicated. Even when the truth is unpalatable, distasteful or objectionable for different reasons it remains none the less the truth, for instance that total abstaining from sexual activity prevents the spread or acquiring of sexually transmitted diseases or unplanned and unwanted pregnancies, that is true, is it fun? Nope, is it something someone who wishes to experiment sexually or who wishes to descralise and reduce sexuality to recreation and amusement wants to hear or believe? Nope.

Does anyone repress their sexuality? Does anyone berate themselves for thinking "gay thoughts"? Not on this forum anyway, I've actually heard people berate themselves for not thinking gay thoughts, I've heard of people, particularly young people, feigning and faking "gay thoughts" or "queer" sexuality because heterosexuality is "vanilla" or "uninteresting". The central cultural scaffolding of both consumerism and potential militate, indirectly and unintentionally perhaps, in favour of homosexuality.

The recasting of these trends as sane and healthy is not something which I would consider a good thing at all.

On my case again, I see .

Religious dogma is inflexible and unquestionable. Time-honoured tradition may serve a purpose and be the best way to do things, but it should not be exempt from criticism and review. If a better alternative presents itself, tradition for the sake of tradition means nothing to me. Also, times change, and society has changed enormously in the last 20 years. Religion has yet to catch up. Time-tested traditions are ripe to be reviewed right about now.

As for your second paragraph, I find your argument flawed. Yes, abstinence eliminates risk 100% (assuming lifetime abstinence). However, the psychological and physical frustration that results from basic needs not being satisfied (intimacy and sex) renders that 100% certainty unattractive in retrospect. Again, it's all about balance... using proper birth control and STD prevention measures is probably 95% effective (assuming lifetime use). However, that risk is worth the pleasure, fulfillment and overall happiness that free expression of sexuality might procur.

Third P: We're on an internet sub-forum catering to rationals... 1) we seem to have less prejudice than is common among others, for most

and 2) I haven't experienced these behaviours yet. I'll hold my judgement.

At any rate, following these trends is not healthy and are unbalanced... if you are a 0 on the Kinsey, accepting your sexuality is... well, being a 0 on the Kinsey.

 

[Sniffles]

Time-honoured tradition may serve a purpose and be the best way to do things, but it should not be exempt from criticism and review. If a better alternative presents itself, tradition for the sake of tradition means nothing to me.

‎"Reason directs those who are truly pious and philosophical to honour and love only what is true, declining to follow traditional opinions, if these be worthless. For not only does sound reason direct us to refuse the guidance of those who did or taught anything wrong, but it is incumbent on the lover of truth, by all means, and if death be threatened, even before his own life, to choose to do and say what is right."
-Justin Martyr, First Apology

 

[pickledoctopus]

Indeed, and that's exactly what religious dogma teaches. Asceticism is often based on the presumption of the good of everyday pleasures, but sacrificing them for a higher purpose.

Dogma in and of itself is inflexible. Just that is enough to reject it, as new data, new societies, different times do not affect it. An inflexible idea is ''bad'' when ill-suited for the situation.

I will not sacrifice everyday pleasures for life unless the power I am sacrificing it for is rationally justifiable, or even unjustifiable for that matter (belief or disbelief in a god is strictly a matter of faith, which is why I suspend my judgement on it.). Furthermore, my everyday pleasures do not harm me or anyone else. If there is a god, I hope it will be smart enough to realize that.

Sacrificing *harmless* everyday pleasures does not affect others, and only causes frustration for me. The overall balance is negative.

What purpose does sacrificing your everyday pleasures serve? What is a god going to do with my frustration and my rational conclusion that my abstinence from something seems to be a flawed solution?

 

[pickledoctopus]

‎"Reason directs those who are truly pious and philosophical to honour and love only what is true, declining to follow traditional opinions, if these be worthless. For not only does sound reason direct us to refuse the guidance of those who did or taught anything wrong, but it is incumbent on the lover of truth, by all means, and if death be threatened, even before his own life, to choose to do and say what is right."
-Justin Martyr, First Apology

That has nothing to do with religion in and of itself. Remove the ''pious'' and the source of the quote (First Apology) and the meaning is not changed at all. This is a commendable viewpoint! It transcends religion.

 

[KDude]

An inflexible idea is ''bad'' when ill-suited for the situation.

This is why I kind of want to retype as a Te type. Heh. I'm totally down with this reasoning. Typology wise, this is ultimately going to be a conflict of Ti/Te, I think (where Ti hangs on to systems, and Te thinks situationally).

 

[Sniffles]

Dogma in and of itself is inflexible.

Dogma deals with timeless truths, so that's kinda given.

Just that is enough to reject it, as new data, new societies, different times do not affect it.

Again dogma and metaphysics deals with the absolute and timeless, so this is a silly reason to reject it. That's not to say that such truths can't manifest themselves in different manners according to changing circumstances and such, but that's quite different from saying that truth itself changes over time.

An inflexible idea is ''bad'' when ill-suited for the situation.

Which is why there's distinctions between truth in the absolute abstract and how it manifests itself in particular concrete situations. This gets back to Plato's theory of ideas.

I will not sacrifice everyday pleasures for life unless the power I am sacrificing it for is rationally justifiable, or even unjustifiable for that matter (belief or disbelief in a god is strictly a matter of faith, which is why I suspend my judgement on it.).

Belief in God is rationally justifiable, and has been done for thousands of years. Rational inquiry into God's existence even has a name - it's called Natural Theology.

 

[Sniffles]

That has nothing to do with religion in and of itself.

Ok whatever you say.

 

[KDude]

Just be yourselves, stop quoting some geezers who lived 1000 years ago to find yourself, and eat a sandwich or something. Or just sit there and look at the stars or smell the roses. Most of all, just stfu and stop analyzing everything and going on about what the meaning of life is, or your future plans of making everything meaningful. It is already meaningful, if you got your head out of your ass for a second. That's hedonism in a nutshell.

Of course, I'm not making the best case for it. Feel free to shoot the messenger.

 

[Sniffles]

Here's another religious perspective on pleasure:
[youtube="2bdFFEiDnmU"]Joshua Heschel ftw![/youtube]

 

[Rail Tracer]

That's all I want too. I'm hardly materialistic. I consider myself low maintenance, I guess.

But I would call this hedonism as well. I'm trying to just enjoy myself. I don't need to think about the future too much, or all of this philosophical, political, and religious stuff that means nothing right now. I'm tired of it. And I'm tired of people who try to guilt and meddle with others about it too. That's the extent of my hedonistic attitude.

That is more like the term I was looking for, materialistic. I'm not exactly the materialistic kind of guy (unless you consider a "sensible" living standard in the U.S. to be materialistic.)

I suppose it is a form of hedonism. It is just, I really don't consider my form to be all that detrimental. It certainly isn't the form the OP is talking nor is it saving for everything so that I can live until I am 100.

 

[Lark]

Religion hasnt ever disappointed me.

And I can honestly say that absolutely everything else has. Either immediately or eventually.

 

[A window to the soul]

Two things have never failed me: God and Ford Mustang.