Voluntary poverty / asceticism is the greatest way to live life
Asceticism is clearly not suitable for the vast majority of mankind, it requires great courage and restraint. However, you must realize/actualize the potential you have for the accumulation of material objects of pleasure. True renunciation is only possible when you can have everything. This is a general outline of how it should be done, so you are not hiding your weakness under the guise of asceticism.
Why should we renounce the world ?
I am sure many of you here are familiar with the arguments offered by Schopenhauer. Our will to live is the greatest source of discomfort, and we must deny it. But I don't share his viewpoint.
Every worldy pleasure ( sensual, intellectual ) makes us forget God who is the only source of peace and contentment. The remembrance of God is the only source of comfort. This world is a temporal abode and a place of suffering for the most part of your life. Mankind is a constant state of struggle. Our distant thinking is a great source of pain, we are if not fully, always partially worried about our future. Needless to say, I don't see how anyone can disagree with this statement. To achieve contentment, we must seek the help of a transcendent being.
But it's a pity, atheism and godlessness is the cultural backdrop of the western world. To see philosophers celebrating nihilism is revolting spiritually. Every person with a sound heart needs to seek shelter. It's a great tradegy, the poor experience of the western world with Christianity has made it forget God.
Why should we renounce the world ?
I am sure many of you here are familiar with the arguments offered by Schopenhauer. Our will to live is the greatest source of discomfort, and we must deny it. But I don't share his viewpoint.
Every worldy pleasure ( sensual, intellectual ) makes us forget God who is the only source of peace and contentment. The remembrance of God is the only source of comfort. This world is a temporal abode and a place of suffering for the most part of your life. Mankind is a constant state of struggle. Our distant thinking is a great source of pain, we are if not fully, always partially worried about our future. Needless to say, I don't see how anyone can disagree with this statement. To achieve contentment, we must seek the help of a transcendent being.
But it's a pity, atheism and godlessness is the cultural backdrop of the western world. To see philosophers celebrating nihilism is revolting spiritually. Every person with a sound heart needs to seek shelter. It's a great tradegy, the poor experience of the western world with Christianity has made it forget God.
Comments (52)
Eat, drink and be merry. Asceticism is offensive to the lord, since it shows you do not fully appreciate his creation.
I don't see how nihilism as a philosophy is practical, it leaves you with nothing. "Life has no meaning", now what ? Where do we go from here and is it even possible to give meaning to your life ? Guaranteed, most of us need to feel a sense of purpose in life, which prevents us from suicide. I don't see any point in proving the existence of God with philosophical arguments, theism gives you hope and a positive outlook on life. Atheism on the other hand paints the image of the universe as a cold, indifferent organism. I can cite studies while has shown how theism helps you psychologically in life.
The general atheist response to theism is pathetic, "we need evidence", "not convinced by philosophical arguments". Every metaphysical system is grounded in unjustified beliefs (you can always reduce it) , What's wrong with believing in a God without evidence and taking it as a starting point of your worldview. I hope one day, we will get rid of our pretentiousness and stop giving epistemology undue importance.
As for practicing minimalism, I think the Nietzschean response to nihilism is more vigorous and conducive to life if you are an atheist. But l don't see how Nietzsche is helpful for most people. His philosophy is for the elite class of mankind ( who truly have the potential to impose their worldwide on the world ). Most of us are incapable of such feats.
God, the creator of everything. A Transcendent being, who isn't confined by spacetime. I described God in my OP as the source of peace and contentment, it is better for us to describe God using attributes. It is impossible to understand how God exists but it's possible to see understand him with attributes we have a good understanding of. (The most merciful, The Wisest, The most Just ) etc.
Few people get stuck on nihilism. Humans are meaning making creatures. We can't help it. The only meaning anyone gives their own life the one they pick subjectively. Doesn't matter if that be Allah or capitalism. In other words, all people base the meaning of their life on a subjective rationale which they believe works. Generally people are too busy with family, friends, work and hobbies for nihilism to be a sticking point.
I lack a sensus divinitatis, so I can't take the idea of gods seriously. Please feel free to believe in gods without evidence, most people who believe do just this. It makes no difference to me.
1. Interestingly: Direct asceticism. Outright denial of worldy pleasures. Renounce the world.
2. Boringly: Indirect asceticism. Immerse yourself in worldly pleasures. You'll eventually get bored. Renounce the world.
I think 2 is preferable (experience matters).
:up:
Perhaps the difference between 1 and 2 is how big one's brain is. A smart enough bloke could deduce (by pure thought alone) from making a few assumptions all the experiential content of worldly pleasures. There should exist an ascetic who knows exactly what an orgasm feels like without ever having one. :chin: Wittgenstein's private language?
Empiricist (Indirect ascetic): It was boring.
Rationalist (Direct ascetic): I knew it's boring.
It's hard for me to comment but this I'll say: some people, the clever ones to be precise, when engaged in planning for the future, simulate the times to come, thinking of all possible ways it could go south and developing appropriate strategies to not have to fall back on plan B. Sometimes this is mental (predictive) exercise is so well done that when a person experiences the actual, it gives him a sense of déjà vu (it's that real). From here it's but a small step to deducing experiential content without having to actually live through it.
Personally in my own experience real life always adds something I was unable to derive through reason, but it may well depend on the nature of the experience. If enlightenment is a real thing then only experience of it will count. Ditto being able to hear or even something more quotidian like poverty. But many mundane affairs are probably fairly easy to explore imaginatively without being immersed their actuality.
Quoting Tom Storm
:fire: :up:
Think of it in terms of science. Experimentation (experience) serves only to confirm what's already (believed to be) known.
In asceticism, you don't "reject the physical body", you reject some popular notions about who we are and what we supposedly need.
Like...
Yes.
People who are in the position to voluntarily abstain from some worldly creature comforts aren't actually renouncing anything yet, even if it externally looks that way. For these people, asceticism would only really begin once they would start to renounce the desire for those worldly creature comforts, and once they would actually cut themselves off from obtaining those worldly creature comforts.
For example, having one spoon, one knife, one fork, one plate, one cup (like some modern minimalist practice) isn't yet asceticism as long as one has more than enough money (and regularly earns more of it) to buy dozens of new sets of cuttlery etc. and lives in a socioeconomic setting where they can buy those things.
Ascetics, I'm told, live on minimum wages in a manner of speaking - barely enough food & clothes to stay alive and these are body-related desiderata (half-rejected). The wants, those items higher up on Maslow's pyramid, are mind-related of course and so are on an ascetic's wish list.
The point, however, isn't what is true of an ascetic (half-rejection of the body) but what he truly desires (total rejection of the body). The ascetic has no option but to fulfil some of his body's needs/wants. You can't hold what is a necessity against someone.
I agree, In my case I am not renouncing anything, just doing without stuff. I prefer it that way. Of course I am but a vulgar physicalist and it's is just a passing phase of 30 years, so people might be right to speculate it's merely a hipster posture I might reverse at any time. :razz:
Is it or is it not? Men can be priests, monks for any amount of years, and then still disrobe. It's far from unheard of.
Then such a person is not an ascetic.
Eh? Where did you get that?
It's not clear where you're going with this.
:chin: Riddle of induction? "Experiments" test – attempt to falsify, not "confirm" – predictions deduced from hypotheses. And, btw, this is not the same as "experience".
Quoting Eskander
A zero-dimensional point rather than a concrete entity (or fact), ergo wholly imaginary ...
Quoting Eskander
Such as the Law of Non-Contradiction (LNC)? :pray:
Just 'making shit up to console yourself', Eskander, amounts to little more than a drug habit (i.e. philosophical suicide ~Camus); to wit: Thou Shalt Not Question The Questionable (and the corollary Thou Shalt Defend The Indefensible In The Name Of Believing The Unbelievable).
:fire:
[quote=Socrates]The secret of happiness, you see, is not found in seeking more, but in developing the capacity to enjoy less.[/quote]
I thought these - confirm & falsify - were two sides of the same coin! Plus, if the experimental findings match theory-based predictions, that does/should count, no? Note, I haven't said experiment proves theory.
Quoting baker
I'm sorry we disagree but it seems odd that it doesn't make sense to you? If someone at a party takes the smallest serving of a dish, one possible reason is that he doesn't actually like/want the grub.
Quoting baker
Why? It's not about getting it from somewhere. Deduction/abduction (vide infra).
Also, back at you, where did you get that? It's not like there's an expert out there who knows the whole truth about what asceticism is.
Quoting baker
If it doesn't make sense to you, let's change the subject.
The second is far from boring, but it's definitely more meaningful as you have pointed out. Asceticism should not be caused by a sour grapes mindset. This way, you are not a passive observer in life, you are actively renouncing pleasure.
It's not that simple; (bodily/worldly) pleasure is addictive (morphine-endorphin). I recall someone (I think it was myself) telling someone (else) not to start smoking instead of experimenting with nicotine and having to quit, kick the habit, later.
No. For instance, many accurate predictions can be made with Ptolemy's geocentric "theory". (re: scroll down the wiki to Contents)
Good point although I'm not sure about "many accurate predictions". If that were true, why would anyone have bothered to proffer a new (heliocentric) theory?
Consider this too: To falsify a theory, doesn't one have to try and confirm the theory. When that fails, the theory is falsified. Two sides of the same coin.
Quoting Agent Smith
Because it also makes false predictions, in addition to the true ones.
The problem is we can show this:
If Theory, then Data.
And so we can show this:
If not-Data, then not-Theory
But we can't (deductively) show this:
If Data, then Theory
If fairies paint the buttercups yellow, then we'll see yellow buttercups. True.
If we don't see yellow buttercups, then the fairies aren't painting them yellow. True again.
So if we see yellow buttercups, the fairies are painting them? No, sorry.
Well, for starters, there are also problems with the geocentric model that, when addressed by shifting an assumption or two, suggests a heliocentric model which lacks said problems and makes better predictions (re: Copernicus, Kepler, Tycho, Galileo, et al). That's how natural science works – e.g. conjecture, parsimony, fallibilism, etc.
NO ... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability
I still want to go with "yes". Fairies painting the flower colours seems much more appealing.
You don't get my point. You are still concerned with dimensions. The concept of dimensions doesn't apply to God. That's why l used the word "transcendent". If you want to question the meaningfulness of religious language. The concept of God is meaningful in religious language games (using linguistic philosophy ) or the classical explanation : You don't need to know "how" in order to believe in a "what" and the attributes we assign to God are clearly meaningful.
The law of non contradiction isn't necessary or justified for every system. If you want a inconsistent system (this does exits), you can remove the law of non-contradiction . You see, we pick and choose whatever we want to believe/use as our foundation.
No, I have my own intuition telling me there is a God. I don't have a mathematical proof or a experiment l can perform for you all. The existence of a order in the universe (scientific laws, mathematical truths ) POINTS to the existence of a God. You can reject this intuition but theism arguably requires less blind faith than atheism. Camus was another arrogant philosopher who could not think beyond the "intellectual" atmosphere of 20 century post WW2 Europe. His greatest problem in philosophy was "the question of suicide", it doesn't get more ridiculous. That's what you end up with once you abandon the clear intuition in your head for a gloomy doomy, woe is me, mommy I am hurt nihilism.
Yeah, and apparently you don't get what your "point" entails. Only unreality (the imaginary) "transcends"
reality. :pray: :roll:
Of course, but why would a rational thinker "want" that – especially for metaphysics? "An inconsistent system" produces nonsensical results (re: principle of explosion), mere magical (woo-of-the-gaps) thinking – jibber-jabberwocky – rather than a rational (i.e. self-consistent, conceptually coherent, inferentially valid) metaphysics, etc.
Ah, let's see: spacetime ("order") "points to" some entity "beyond spacetime"? Uh huh. Well, Eskander, the Argument From Poor Design, among many other sound arguments, reasonably suggests otherwise. :point:
Aka wishful thinking. 'Wanting it to be so, therefore it must be so' (i.e. making shit up just to comfort yourself). Sounds solipsistic to me. Too g_od to be true – this doesn't ring any bells or raise any red flags, huh?
Camus' "greatest problem" was formulated in 1940 after France fell to the Nazis and then published in 1942 – nothing to do with "post WW2". Conspicuously, you "arrogantly" deride and dismiss what do not comprehend, my friend, which also may be why you're content with the fact-free fiats of "my own intuition". :roll:
I get this part.
Quoting 180 Proof
Here's how I understand falsifiability:
1. Formulate a hypothesis, call it T
2. T entails prediction P
3. Conduct an experiment to observe P
4. Either P is observed or P is not observed.
5. If P is not observed, then T is falsified
If P is observed, then ?
P being observed has to mean something. Otherwise there's no difference between there's no hypothesis (no T, no P) and there's a hypothesis (T [math]\rightarrow[/math] P).
This "means" nothing more than the hypothesis-P (model) has not been falsified yet. If there isn't better – fewer assumptions, more predictions, greater explanatory scope – alternative, then the currently unfalsified hypothesis-P is most preferable until it's either falsfied or superceded by another better hypothesis. Tell me, Smith: how does one "confirm" for all-time that hypothesis-P is 'the final explanation' (i.e. the truth). I'll wait ... :eyes:
There are 3 possibilities when it comes to predictions:
1. No prediction
2. Yes prediction
(i) Prediction is true
(ii) Prediction is false
If 2 (i) [Prediction is true] doesn't mean anything then it's the same as 1 [No prediction]. It doesn't make sense.
You have to be aware that science bends/breaks the rules of deductive logic.
@Cuthbert
I'll try another approach.
If a hypothesis T makes a prediction P and P is observed via experiment is it alright to say that T is one of many possible hypotheses that explains P?
Quoting 180 Proof
I don't quite understand what you're saying. Aren't predictions phenomena? Being so, predictions need explanations and the hypotheses that entails them are it.
Let me tell you what I have a problem with.
Suppose hypotheses H1, H2, H3, all of which predicts P.
Then
1. P is false means H1, H2, H3 are falsified (We agree on this)
2. P is true means H1, H2, H3 aren't falsified (your stance and I agree)
What's the next step?
Evaluate hypotheses H1, H2, H3 with Occam's razor and other parameters and zero in on the best hypothesis, say H1.
In other words P is true leads to a different set of procedures in re the scientific method than P is false. These give me the impression that one of the hypotheses (H1, H2, H3) is confirmed i.e. one of H1, H2, H3 is the best and all that's needed now is to use other evaluative mechanisms to home in on it.
even his last name suggests he wasn't into direct asceticism.
No. They are statements.
Statements about phenomena, no?
Maps =/= territory.
:ok: