I don’t understand this statement. The rest of the article is an exercise in philosophy.
I perceive it to be behavior that does not elevate the human being beyond that of a lesser animal.
This is just hedonism.
Their philosophy isn’t to understand truth or beauty either. It’s just to “use heuristics” to do what other successful people do.
I don’t like Western hedonistic philosophy like this that piggybacks off of old world philosophies and picks and chooses behaviors and practices without understanding. I associate it with Western humanism which I find equally dangerous because the two are philosophical siblings from the same immoral thinking.
This is dangerous philosophy.
Edit: I’ve edited this post because I found my initial post to be overly negative.
I wasn't impressed by this post but I don't think it's all that dangerous either. The epistemic hubris is extreme, it takes the attitude that you can discard millennia of human thought and come up with the real answers to life in 15 minutes.
That's obviously ridiculous. Correspondingly it's very easy to poke holes in the arguments here. Let's just take the first premise, that we should (a) prevent immediate suffering, and (b) prevent future suffering. What about the very important case where I accept some suffering in the short term to reduce suffering in the long term? No indication here of where that makes sense and where it doesn't. What about a prisoner's dilemma where I may be able to prevent a lot of suffering, but only if someone else (who I have limited information about) makes the same decision I do?
These questions (What do we do about time? What do we do about society?) are just two examples of the hard questions where all the work gets done. The post doesn't explore them. In fact it seems to assume as a premise that hard questions don't really exist. If this is hedonism, the stuffy philosophers maligned by the poster have produced better arguments for hedonism than this one.
(All that said I don't think we should go too hard on the poster - at least they are trying, which is more than most people do!)
> Their philosophy isn’t to understand truth or beauty either. It’s just to “use heuristics” to do what other successful people do.
I've found that studying others is a reliable way to discover truth and beauty. I also think investigating yourself produces good results. But maybe I'm overthinking haha
> picks and chooses behaviors and practices without understanding
I'm really really interested in how to pick behaviors and practices! Do you have any recommendations?
I agree with you on all points except I've never thought about humanism that way. Perhaps I have the wrong definition or understanding of humanism.
But you single out "Western" humanism and perhaps that explains it. I already believe Western culture is deeply selfist and that selfism is fundamentally immoral -- Morality is all about transcending selfishness.
> Western humanism which I find equally dangerous because the two are philosophical siblings from the same immoral thinking.
Do you mind elaborating on your issues with Western Humanism? I've never heard anyone critique it from a non-biblical angle, so I'm curious to hear what the gripes are.
I don’t buy any of this “do everything to stop suffering” bullshit. Suffering makes us human. Read some Aldous Huxley. Attempting to avoid the unavoidable is neuroticism by definition. Learn to appreciate your suffering and get to acceptance of it as quickly as possible.
To be That Buddhist Guy - as the old saying goes: "Pain is inevitable, suffering is optional".
To me this is the critical distinction. Pain (loss of loved ones, physical pain, health issues, losing a job etc) is a part of life. If you love, you ultimately lose. This is what life is, this is what love is. It's gunna hurt at times. This cannot be changed and cannot be controlled. This is the Buddhist "first arrow".
But. What you ~do~ with that pain - how you respond to a crisis, how you think of yourself as victim or otherwise, how much you ruminate on the self: "damn, this shit always happens to me / why am I always ill / I'm poorer than that guy over there and it's eating me up" - all of this ~can~ be changed. This is suffering. We're all so bound up in the self that the ego very often controls our response to pain. Suffering blooms. This is the "second arrow".
Like anything else, it takes practice to get better at this. But you can get better at it. I know I have. I'm still - like most humans - often bound by instinctual reactions. I'm still triggered by anger and fear and uncertainty at regular periods. But with mindfulness and attention training it becomes easier to be content, easier to "put a gap between stimulus and response", easier to just notice the ego flaring up, see those moments of regret or jealousy or greed.
Attention truly is at the centre of this. Noticing from as dispassionate a position as possible that you are reacting in a particular way will only come when you pay attention to your inner dialogue. That's another reason why attention being eaten by gadgets / notifications / etc is so nasty.
Yeah, if you get a nail through your foot, don't pull it out! Make the nail a point of pride, as you limp through your life! Humans are supposed to suffer, after all.
I have gained a great deal of value from the stoic/Buddhist traditions around acceptance of a certain amount of suffering, but 'learn to appreciate your suffering' is just plain silly in most cases. If masochism is your thing, fair enough, but don't act like it's what everyone should do.
The author didn't even indicate you should do everything to avoid suffering, but you're going after the idea like a ghost has been haunting you with it. I would normally assume you meant 'appreciate' as one might appreciate an avalanche - from the farthest possible vantage point - but you took that right to the "any of this 'x' bullshit" level right form the hop, just because the author made a reasonable assumption. (which was not that we should "do everything to stop suffering"). Nearly every human and other living creature seems to act in accordance with the author's assumption, so it's probably not a bad thing to assume.
Suffering is bad - arguably as bad can be. If I must live with it, I'll appreciate how polished the turd is, but if I don't have to live with that turd, why would I?
Something about the suffering you experience ultra-running rewired my brain, actually. I came to think that we try too hard (in the first world) to make ourselves overly comfortable. And, in fact, some amount of suffering and struggle motivates and promotes the human brain. Good innovations, culture, food, etc tend to come from these places.
I think the article means suffering in a first couple Maslo’s Hierarchy kind of way, i.e. food, sleep, disease, etc. This is hard to argue with, especially when kids are dying of easily preventable problems in some parts of the world. This is clearly not what I mean. We can and should do everything to solve that suffering.
But, by contrast: having to walk two miles every day to get somewhere because you can’t afford a car is probably a good suffering with lots of fabulously creative solutions.
It feels to me like we sometimes confuse inconvenience for suffering and then try to “solve it” because “suffering is bad”.
But there’s a secondary problem with this: suffering can’t be appreciated by definition - in fact a good working definition of suffering is “that which is not appreciated”. So asking people to do that just generates gibberish.
Or grifting.
An example I see on socmedia regularly: some mogul worth 20 to 100 million, or more, lecturing the rest of us on the value of suffering. It’s ridiculous. Does that guy suffer? No.
So I prefer not to encourage this and say honestly, as a near working class person who struggles mightily to save & earn - I don’t appreciate suffering and I especially don’t like to hear it from people materially insulated from suffering. End of story.
Partially agree with you, but don't stop at appreciating or accepting suffering. What makes us human is overcoming suffering. So yes, don't avoid it, but overcome it. Avoid complacency.
I agree. There’s beauty in suffering. There’s lessons in it. It sucks but when you come out the other side I wouldn’t trade the lessons I got for anything.
Yeah, just saying suffering is bad without any context is not helpful. Apart from being unavoidable, certain kinds of suffering produces happiness for people down the road. For example, running & training for a marathon was suffering but the reward and experience of doing it was life changing, taught me so much about myself.
I really believe this type of thinking and the philosophies spawned by it are harmful. It's easy to find flaws even with premise #1, that "suffering is bad".
We choose to suffer for things we deem worth suffering for even if they don't bring us "joy". In an extreme example of this, we might even choose to jump in front of a car if it means saving a child.
I think a lot of things in this philosophical vein are a symptom of disconnection from society. I truly believe that if you are socially enmeshed with others around you and deeply care about their well being (friends, family, maybe even a partner and/or pets and/or children), or have other things in the world that you deeply care about, (e.g. nature, art, etc.), it would seem odd to try and deduce life from first principles, since these "worldly attachments" are an immediate and obvious source of meaning, value, and direction.
Regarding section 3 - what even is "true happiness", anyway? I'd say (without evidence) that among those who are financially secure, the happiest people are probably those who are content and don't spend all their time wondering about how happy they are; the more you think about this topic the more you'll focus how you can be happier and just end up dissatisfied as a result. A mindset of optimizing for happiness will accidentally make you unhappy.
With all that said, I do like the author's section about trying to align yourself with reality as much as possible.
> I'd say (without evidence) that among those who are financially secure, the happiest people are probably those who are content and don't spend all their time wondering about how happy they are; the more you think about this topic the more you'll focus how you can be happier and just end up dissatisfied as a result. A mindset of optimizing for happiness will accidentally make you unhappy.
Fantastic point.
How do you escape the trap? How do you make yourself happier without worrying about happiness?
It seems like a meditation discipline could be helpful for addressing this. How else would you tackle it?
It's comical how this article calls for a lifestyle design from supposed "first principles" while completely ignoring the context in which they take place. No wonder they believe philosophy to be futile. I believe we need more thinking, not less.
> What traits do wealthy people have in common?
> What traits do poor people have in common?
There seems to be a subtle but profound supposition that being rich or poor is just a matter of "heuristics." Reminds me of the countless self-help books written, YouTube videos made, and Instagram posts, on habits of rich people. I don't think that is going to take you anywhere.
> There seems to be a subtle but profound supposition that being rich or poor is just a matter of "heuristics." Reminds me of the countless self-help books written, YouTube videos made, and Instagram posts, on habits of rich people. I don't think that is going to take you anywhere.
Oof, great point. I didn't mean to imply that.
I'm a huge fan of simple systems, but simple systems aren't always easy systems.
I also don't think heuristics will work 100% of the time. Heck, I'm not even sure if they'll work 65% of the time. But where else do you start, if not for copying others?
This pattern is selfish and fights against our humanity. What separates us from "the apes" is we make personal sacrifices for the greater good our society (family, country, community, etc.).
> Life is a mapless territory. You are a faulty compass.
Not really. Just look up Indian spirituality. These guys had food and water for a very long time so they spent a bunch of time studying life and the mind.
If you want to get into spirituality look at the East. If you want to get into scientific thinking and categorization, look at the West.
It is that simple.
Start with yoga as a whole. Not just the poses which is a tiny part of yoga sold to us here in the west.
> Few truths are useful. Philosophy is generally impractical.
Modern philosophy is impractical. The Greek/Roman philosophy is great, for example. It should be a huge shame for "humanity" to drop this approach in favor of highly sophisticated word-juggling in three tomes.
> Premise 1: suffering is bad
As someone already mentioned in the post, there is the difference between negative feeling we feel and the process of suffering it triggers. One of the biggest flaws of the common human culture is the failure to recognise it.
You may feel the coldness of water, but not to be cold. You can feel pain but not suffer. Or, more generally, you can see a failure indicator on your control panel, but not to become the failure.
Without taking this difference into an account, the rest of this hedonism makes no sense :-)
On the other side, philosophers usually focus on abstract things: think/behave like this and your life will be good. Forgetting that whatever smart philosopher you are, you probably will not be able to function normally under extreme hunger or chronic pain.
Life coach warning. They have to pretend a life can be programmed with certainty by way of subjugating yourself to their proprietary rehashed perspectives. And how blissful if the right wispy sentence would effortlessly reach me and motivate me at the right time, with minimal sacrifice on my part though.
I stopper reading at “prevent yourself from suffering”.
My life completely changed for the better since when I let this point go. For real. This prevented me to do things like gardening or working hard - those are rewarding. Also I am sure my company would be the same calm waters and zero profits haha.
This article falls into the trap of setting up a straw-man to deal with the inherent complexity and ambiguity of human living. Suffering is bad? Tell that to anybody who has achieved anything beyond 0.
There was not one mention of the word "risk" in that post. It is terrible advice to maintain your body and mind? What? This advice is given as 30-40% of the western world approaches obesity, and more than that will experience some form of cancer, Alzheimers, diabetes, or heart disease in their life.
I would almost counter and say that maximizing your ev from experiences just seems like a terrible way to micromanage your life. How do you put ev on mountain biking for a few hours, or having a movie night with a loved one? Are you going to sit down with a spreadsheet and figure it out...or are you maybe just going to go out and do the thing and enjoy it?
I don't agree with it from the start.
Right amount of suffering builds you and strengthens you. In some way evolution can be thought of as suffering of species in an infinite quest to better respond to surroundings.
Finally, there's no happy feelings without sad feelings. Experiencing both extremes in balance is living life to its fullest.
[+] [-] andrewmcwatters|2 years ago|reply
I don’t understand this statement. The rest of the article is an exercise in philosophy.
I perceive it to be behavior that does not elevate the human being beyond that of a lesser animal.
This is just hedonism.
Their philosophy isn’t to understand truth or beauty either. It’s just to “use heuristics” to do what other successful people do.
I don’t like Western hedonistic philosophy like this that piggybacks off of old world philosophies and picks and chooses behaviors and practices without understanding. I associate it with Western humanism which I find equally dangerous because the two are philosophical siblings from the same immoral thinking.
This is dangerous philosophy.
Edit: I’ve edited this post because I found my initial post to be overly negative.
[+] [-] safety1st|2 years ago|reply
That's obviously ridiculous. Correspondingly it's very easy to poke holes in the arguments here. Let's just take the first premise, that we should (a) prevent immediate suffering, and (b) prevent future suffering. What about the very important case where I accept some suffering in the short term to reduce suffering in the long term? No indication here of where that makes sense and where it doesn't. What about a prisoner's dilemma where I may be able to prevent a lot of suffering, but only if someone else (who I have limited information about) makes the same decision I do?
These questions (What do we do about time? What do we do about society?) are just two examples of the hard questions where all the work gets done. The post doesn't explore them. In fact it seems to assume as a premise that hard questions don't really exist. If this is hedonism, the stuffy philosophers maligned by the poster have produced better arguments for hedonism than this one.
(All that said I don't think we should go too hard on the poster - at least they are trying, which is more than most people do!)
[+] [-] surprisetalk|2 years ago|reply
> Their philosophy isn’t to understand truth or beauty either. It’s just to “use heuristics” to do what other successful people do.
I've found that studying others is a reliable way to discover truth and beauty. I also think investigating yourself produces good results. But maybe I'm overthinking haha
> picks and chooses behaviors and practices without understanding
I'm really really interested in how to pick behaviors and practices! Do you have any recommendations?
[+] [-] unknown|2 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] eevilspock|2 years ago|reply
But you single out "Western" humanism and perhaps that explains it. I already believe Western culture is deeply selfist and that selfism is fundamentally immoral -- Morality is all about transcending selfishness.
[+] [-] now__what|2 years ago|reply
Do you mind elaborating on your issues with Western Humanism? I've never heard anyone critique it from a non-biblical angle, so I'm curious to hear what the gripes are.
[+] [-] flangola7|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jleo2255|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dmje|2 years ago|reply
To me this is the critical distinction. Pain (loss of loved ones, physical pain, health issues, losing a job etc) is a part of life. If you love, you ultimately lose. This is what life is, this is what love is. It's gunna hurt at times. This cannot be changed and cannot be controlled. This is the Buddhist "first arrow".
But. What you ~do~ with that pain - how you respond to a crisis, how you think of yourself as victim or otherwise, how much you ruminate on the self: "damn, this shit always happens to me / why am I always ill / I'm poorer than that guy over there and it's eating me up" - all of this ~can~ be changed. This is suffering. We're all so bound up in the self that the ego very often controls our response to pain. Suffering blooms. This is the "second arrow".
Like anything else, it takes practice to get better at this. But you can get better at it. I know I have. I'm still - like most humans - often bound by instinctual reactions. I'm still triggered by anger and fear and uncertainty at regular periods. But with mindfulness and attention training it becomes easier to be content, easier to "put a gap between stimulus and response", easier to just notice the ego flaring up, see those moments of regret or jealousy or greed.
Attention truly is at the centre of this. Noticing from as dispassionate a position as possible that you are reacting in a particular way will only come when you pay attention to your inner dialogue. That's another reason why attention being eaten by gadgets / notifications / etc is so nasty.
[+] [-] twojacobtwo|2 years ago|reply
I have gained a great deal of value from the stoic/Buddhist traditions around acceptance of a certain amount of suffering, but 'learn to appreciate your suffering' is just plain silly in most cases. If masochism is your thing, fair enough, but don't act like it's what everyone should do.
The author didn't even indicate you should do everything to avoid suffering, but you're going after the idea like a ghost has been haunting you with it. I would normally assume you meant 'appreciate' as one might appreciate an avalanche - from the farthest possible vantage point - but you took that right to the "any of this 'x' bullshit" level right form the hop, just because the author made a reasonable assumption. (which was not that we should "do everything to stop suffering"). Nearly every human and other living creature seems to act in accordance with the author's assumption, so it's probably not a bad thing to assume.
Suffering is bad - arguably as bad can be. If I must live with it, I'll appreciate how polished the turd is, but if I don't have to live with that turd, why would I?
[+] [-] xorvoid|2 years ago|reply
Something about the suffering you experience ultra-running rewired my brain, actually. I came to think that we try too hard (in the first world) to make ourselves overly comfortable. And, in fact, some amount of suffering and struggle motivates and promotes the human brain. Good innovations, culture, food, etc tend to come from these places.
I think the article means suffering in a first couple Maslo’s Hierarchy kind of way, i.e. food, sleep, disease, etc. This is hard to argue with, especially when kids are dying of easily preventable problems in some parts of the world. This is clearly not what I mean. We can and should do everything to solve that suffering.
But, by contrast: having to walk two miles every day to get somewhere because you can’t afford a car is probably a good suffering with lots of fabulously creative solutions.
It feels to me like we sometimes confuse inconvenience for suffering and then try to “solve it” because “suffering is bad”.
[+] [-] julianeon|2 years ago|reply
Or grifting.
An example I see on socmedia regularly: some mogul worth 20 to 100 million, or more, lecturing the rest of us on the value of suffering. It’s ridiculous. Does that guy suffer? No.
So I prefer not to encourage this and say honestly, as a near working class person who struggles mightily to save & earn - I don’t appreciate suffering and I especially don’t like to hear it from people materially insulated from suffering. End of story.
[+] [-] 50|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] programmarchy|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Cardinal7167|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nocoder|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] barbarr|2 years ago|reply
We choose to suffer for things we deem worth suffering for even if they don't bring us "joy". In an extreme example of this, we might even choose to jump in front of a car if it means saving a child.
I think a lot of things in this philosophical vein are a symptom of disconnection from society. I truly believe that if you are socially enmeshed with others around you and deeply care about their well being (friends, family, maybe even a partner and/or pets and/or children), or have other things in the world that you deeply care about, (e.g. nature, art, etc.), it would seem odd to try and deduce life from first principles, since these "worldly attachments" are an immediate and obvious source of meaning, value, and direction.
Regarding section 3 - what even is "true happiness", anyway? I'd say (without evidence) that among those who are financially secure, the happiest people are probably those who are content and don't spend all their time wondering about how happy they are; the more you think about this topic the more you'll focus how you can be happier and just end up dissatisfied as a result. A mindset of optimizing for happiness will accidentally make you unhappy.
With all that said, I do like the author's section about trying to align yourself with reality as much as possible.
[+] [-] surprisetalk|2 years ago|reply
Fantastic point.
How do you escape the trap? How do you make yourself happier without worrying about happiness?
It seems like a meditation discipline could be helpful for addressing this. How else would you tackle it?
[+] [-] unstuck3958|2 years ago|reply
> What traits do wealthy people have in common? > What traits do poor people have in common?
There seems to be a subtle but profound supposition that being rich or poor is just a matter of "heuristics." Reminds me of the countless self-help books written, YouTube videos made, and Instagram posts, on habits of rich people. I don't think that is going to take you anywhere.
[+] [-] surprisetalk|2 years ago|reply
Oof, great point. I didn't mean to imply that.
I'm a huge fan of simple systems, but simple systems aren't always easy systems.
I also don't think heuristics will work 100% of the time. Heck, I'm not even sure if they'll work 65% of the time. But where else do you start, if not for copying others?
[+] [-] itake|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ilrwbwrkhv|2 years ago|reply
Not really. Just look up Indian spirituality. These guys had food and water for a very long time so they spent a bunch of time studying life and the mind.
If you want to get into spirituality look at the East. If you want to get into scientific thinking and categorization, look at the West.
It is that simple.
Start with yoga as a whole. Not just the poses which is a tiny part of yoga sold to us here in the west.
[+] [-] surprisetalk|2 years ago|reply
Any resources for exploring "yoga as a whole"? Could be interesting
[+] [-] yhavr|2 years ago|reply
Modern philosophy is impractical. The Greek/Roman philosophy is great, for example. It should be a huge shame for "humanity" to drop this approach in favor of highly sophisticated word-juggling in three tomes.
> Premise 1: suffering is bad
As someone already mentioned in the post, there is the difference between negative feeling we feel and the process of suffering it triggers. One of the biggest flaws of the common human culture is the failure to recognise it. You may feel the coldness of water, but not to be cold. You can feel pain but not suffer. Or, more generally, you can see a failure indicator on your control panel, but not to become the failure. Without taking this difference into an account, the rest of this hedonism makes no sense :-)
On the other side, philosophers usually focus on abstract things: think/behave like this and your life will be good. Forgetting that whatever smart philosopher you are, you probably will not be able to function normally under extreme hunger or chronic pain.
[+] [-] theage|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] szundi|2 years ago|reply
My life completely changed for the better since when I let this point go. For real. This prevented me to do things like gardening or working hard - those are rewarding. Also I am sure my company would be the same calm waters and zero profits haha.
[+] [-] joduplessis|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] brookst|2 years ago|reply
This is terrible advice. Risk-aversion is life-aversion.
A better formulation would be "maximize your expected value from experiences"
[+] [-] mym1990|2 years ago|reply
I would almost counter and say that maximizing your ev from experiences just seems like a terrible way to micromanage your life. How do you put ev on mountain biking for a few hours, or having a movie night with a loved one? Are you going to sit down with a spreadsheet and figure it out...or are you maybe just going to go out and do the thing and enjoy it?
[+] [-] GivinStatic|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bullen|2 years ago|reply
You need to think different and to use your body as a petridish is the fastest way to understanding the world.
You're going to die anyway.
The real hard part is getting people to accept your discoveries. Most problems need to be presented as solutions and by that time it's often too late.
[+] [-] unknown|2 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] jschveibinz|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] iamnotsure|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] eevilspock|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] surprisetalk|2 years ago|reply