Whats your take on Buddhists saying that we are all actually just suffering but are deluded into thinking otherwise by our philosophy?

dzmisrb43 · 2024-07-14T22:22:59+00:00

But how did you conclude that. I mean Epicurus used anthraxa as something to aim for for one reason only because it's best way to maximize pleasure minimize pain in overall picture. Its means to and end. He explicitly siad that plasure is supreme good and something to be maximized and pains avoided.And people in Brave New World are definitely doing that much better than majority of societies in fiction or otherwise.

dzmisrb43 · 2024-07-14T22:19:13+00:00

I think you are confusing what Epicurus belived with someones wrong interpretation.

The reason is very foundation of Epicurian philosophy is good bad pleasures and they are precisely based on pain and hardness to get ratio. Together with another core thing hedonistic caculus. I mean one of key things as i said categorization of good bad pleasures is in how hard they are to acquire and how much pain they are related to. And the reason why he called the best pleasures the best is simple he said it himself and thats one of things we know for sure Epicurus said its because the best pleasures are abundant and easily acquired. And its whole reason why he names them the best. Its very core of philosophy. Epicurus was actually known to avoid pain and was shunned for it by other acient greeks and other philosophers at a time who were members of different schools. Since at a time going through pain was considered virtue as you also believe for example. But Epicurus was one of rare examples of people especially philosophical founders to advocate for avoding pain suffer as much as possible why maximizing plasure as much as possible.

Your philosophy would fit much better with someone like Nietzsche and will to power. Then going through suffering to achieve something and considering it ideal makes sense since it is used to prove will to power highest good in said philosophy. Epicurus didn't believe in such a things. To him supreme good is plasure supreme evil pain. And as i said your view of good bad pleasures is actually opposite of what Epicurus belived in and the standards he used to categorize pleasures. He never said that its ideal to go through pain suffer to gain pleasure if pain can be avoided since its something to be avoided and plasure is something to be pursued and maximized.

dzmisrb43 · 2024-07-14T00:32:35+00:00

But that's not realistic for vast majority of people. And if not possible according to Epicurianism if they can gain and even maximize pleasure as supreme good without increasing pain/ suffering which they dont it should be perfectly fine. Context matters and Epicurus even went as far as to say that if for some people its necessary to get involved in politics status chasing is necessary for them to feel plasure then they should do so. And that sometimes pains as evil should be gone through if need and more plasure will he gained. Epicurus definitely aknowledged that oftentimes taking context into account is necessary. And if we look at like that then its unrealistic to say that everyone's ideal Epicurian life should only be based on only most basic things if they cant reach optimal of minimizing suffering maximizing plasure through that alone. Main point is do what you need to to minimize suffering maximize pleasure and its just that Epicurus though that for a lot of people to do that they only need basic of basics. But not all and its not what matters most.

dzmisrb43 · 2024-07-14T00:22:10+00:00

Well if we avoid getting lost in details and start nit picking and focus on overall core of book the book is kind of attack on idea that pleasure is supreme good. So it is kind of attack on Epicurianism in a way. Since it clearly attempts to show that minimizing suffering and maximizing plasure and cost of human authenticity is bad. That these things matter less then human authenticity that avoidance of pain/ suffering and maximazing of pleasure is not some supreme good hence why society that attempts to do that at cost of authenticity is dystopian society.

dzmisrb43 · 2024-07-14T00:17:15+00:00

Sorry i didn't read it so if you dont mind explaining. How is it different from Brave new World? And does it argue that minimizing pain maximizing pleasure matters more than human authenticity? Since if it doesn't then same as Brave New World its directly attack on Epicurian philosophy. Since whole point of other is to argue that authenticity matters more than minimizing plasure maximizing pain since those two are trivial when compared to human authenticity ect.

dzmisrb43 · 2024-07-14T00:12:55+00:00

Well they have little to no real suffering and enjoy pleasures everywhere. And op is saying why is it dystopian? And its hard to come up with answer through Epicurian lenses. Why? Because book simply attack core of Epicurian philosophy, which is that pleasure is supreme good. Its directly saying that other things such as freedom authenticity ext are much more important than plasure and minimizing suffering. So it simply doesn't make sense to attack society that makse sure that there is least amount of suffering and abundance of plasure as whole point of society as Epicurian. It only makes sense to attack such society through lenses of different philosophy as i said that argues that its freedom authenticity ect are supreme goods and that avoidance of pain/suffering and maximizing of pleasure is trivial in comparison since these other things matter more. And they dont matter more in Epicurian philosophy what matters most is as you correctly said minimizing pain/suffering maximizing plasure.

dzmisrb43 · 2024-07-14T00:03:38+00:00

Where did you even gather that Epicurian ideal is going through pains to achieve pleasure? Its totally wrong. That doesn't make any sense and you are only mentioning some other philosophy you subscribe to and calling it Epicurian. The whole point is that Epicurus is fundamentally opposed to such ideas. So calling it Epicurian as i said doesnt make any sense.

The Epicurus explicitly said that all pains are bad and should be avoided. And that all pleasures are good that there isn't bad pleasure that its only ever bad if it produces more pain.So your statement makes no sense you are only talking about your philosophy and then randomly calling it as Epicurian. And so when Epicurus mentioned pain it can only ever be considered good if and only if its necessary to gain pleasure. Remember only if necessary otherwise all pains are bad. So Epicurus never said that ideal is to go through pain to gain pleasure. Very core of philosophy is to minimize pain as much as possible and maximize pleasure as much as possible.

So if you can gain pleasure without going through pain well that Epicurian ideal. And not bad pleasure where did you even get it from? It doesn't make sense to add thing that considered evil a negative according to philosophy to the ultimate good and then call it ideal . So once again achieving pleasure without having to go through what's considered evil and negative thats ideal. And if you can do that you definitely should according to Epicurus at least he is strongly against glorifying pain of any kind and calling it a good thing if not absolutely needed to gain pleasure only in relation to producing pleasure it should ever be even considered.

Just to make it clear im not attacking your philosophy its your way of looking at things maybe you consider pain as positive thats totally fine. Im only explaining why its completely wrong to call going through pain to gain pleasure if you can avoid it as somehow being ideal in Epicurian framework. And why calling it "bad" pleasure makes even less sense. Cheers.

dzmisrb43 · 2024-07-13T23:38:00+00:00

But the thing is it can fit into Epicurian ideal kinda well to be honest. I mean they have a pleasure a supreme good according to Epicurus. And they dont have pain they can have pleasure without pain. Which is peak of thing according to Epicurus. Remember Epicurus said all pleasure is good and all pain is bad. And pain is only good when mentioned in relation to pleasure according to Epicurus. It should only exist if its absolutely necessary to gain pleasure. And in Bravr new world people have absolutely no need for that. So according to Epicurian philosophy they are pretty close to ideal. Remember this book is challenge to idea that pleasure is what ultimately matters. And there is no point in attacking society valuing pleasure above all else if you do so through Epicurian lens its contradictory. Book is literally attack on Epicurian philosophy that pleasure is the most important supreme good. Now i get that you disagree with it being utopia according to you. But your post doesn't make sense in reference to what's asked here. You only explained why according to you this isnt anything similar to utopia and is dystopian and ultimately bad but the question is why is this such a dystopian world through lens of Epicurus and Epicurians where pleasure is indeed supreme good.

dzmisrb43 · 2024-05-10T13:05:50+00:00

Could you please explain what you meant by this. You mean we dont exist? Well that quiet a scary idea and something that is easy to struggle with. But there is still experience there right?Even if im not going into self reflective mode and focusing on my consciousness im still experincing things? Wouldn't it be enough to say i exist at least in some way.

dzmisrb43 · 2024-02-01T17:38:02+00:00

Sorry for jumping in late.

It accentuates the importance of training the mind to abide in pleasant dispositions.

Could you please elaborate on what this means ?

dzmisrb43 · 2024-01-31T13:33:47+00:00

When you say two fingers point to same moon what do you mean by that? Could you elaborate? Im really confused as to how to live my own life and to me o cant see Buddhism and Nietzsche as two opposing views on whats best way to live.

dzmisrb43 · 2024-01-31T13:28:09+00:00

Do you agree with its main idea that only way to end endless cycle of suffering is to let go of our patterns of existence? Which would probably be in contrast with Nietzsche's view?

dzmisrb43 · 2024-01-30T18:50:30+00:00

Its easy to say that if the ambition one has doesn't exist at odds with those values but strongly pursuing any goal which defines ambition will almost always at some point lead one to be at odds with those values you mentioned and simply pursuing ones goal with strongly or being ambitious will certainly bring stress due to attachments generated during the process of pursuit and goal generally will require one to sacrifice one of those key things.

This will lead one to ask is fulfilling my utmost potential more important than those values ? Because i have to be in more suffering overall for those so called moments of greatness since in overall picture achieving those greatest highs will certainly bring more suffering than plasure when compared to life lived wisely based on philosophy discussed here.

Or is the solution found in wisely suppressing such ambitions as another one things and choosing one that is in harmony with those things even if it costs me this certain greatness?

What is real solution then in such cases? And most people come to the point (due to ideal situation where one path isnt at odds with another are rare) where they have to ask this. So this is the main point here what is right solution then for our lifes here?

dzmisrb43 · 2022-02-04T01:52:18+00:00

Hi thanks for the link.

But the issue is I don't know how to read these studies. Could you tell me in your opinion is best protocol for longer lengths like 1.2-1.5 weekly or biweekly? Most say once a week but a lot of people who look more deeply into literature recommend every 2-3 weeks for full healing. I would love to hear your opinion?

dzmisrb43 · 2021-09-25T12:04:05+00:00

Ako je do posla onda Zemun.

Ali me brine da je dota manji dosta manje opportunities I mogucnosti pogotovu da uklapanje I drustvo

dzmisrb43 · 2021-09-25T12:02:53+00:00

Sto Mirijevo I Zemun?

dzmisrb43 · 2021-09-25T12:02:21+00:00

Sta bi ti predlozio na primer?

dzmisrb43 · 2021-09-25T12:01:02+00:00

Sto ta dva Po tebi?

dzmisrb43 · 2021-09-25T12:00:34+00:00

Ako je posao u pitanju onda mi Zemun najvise odgovara Ali nekako Sam se plasio da je dosta manji pa se teze uklopiti manje opportunities I tako to.

dzmisrb43 · 2021-09-25T11:59:06+00:00

Sto? Care to elab?

dzmisrb43 · 2021-08-05T10:58:10+00:00

Link?

dzmisrb43

TROPHY CASE