>hated hedonism >while also hating ascetism ???

>hated hedonism
???

That's a perfectly viable, non-contradictory position to take. Hedonism saw pleasure as life-maximizing, while asceticism saw it as life-minimizing. Nietzsche simply does not view the affirmation of life as a simple function of pleasure.

surely there's a good balance of both

File: buddha fasting.png (1MB, 788x1125px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 788x1125px

>>9265336
muh middle path

>>9265336
both are reactionary rather than in-dwelling
they are fearful of their opposites

The problem with anti-hedonism people is they think that meaning, enlightenment, calm, happiness, and anything anyone finds worth doing fits into the hedonistic paradigm from a neurological standpoint.

We are ape-machines built with + and - categories to guide action to preserve the genes. Consciousness and consequent proliferation of variety of +'s doesn't change that. It's all about managing your hedonism "wisely" as the Greeks sought to do. It's fair to say Socrates and Aristotle were hedonists, though they never called themselves that.

>>9265391
*doesnt fit into the hedonism paradigm

>>9265336
Dude most people agree with that.

>>9265336

Nietzsche thought that you should dedicate yourself to the pursuit of lofty but worldly goals, hence he rejects ascetism, but he also thought you should do so even if it makes you unhappy, hence he rejects hedonism. He praised people like Beethoven, Napoleon and da Vinci, who were neither ascetics or hedonists.

>>9265391
The thing is a big part of Nietzsche's philosophy is that he thinks a - can actually be a good thing.

>>9265391
Intellectual pleasure is not the same as sensual (hedonistic) pleasure.

Looking at a book is not the same thing as reading a book.

>>9265336
>muh dichotomies

>>9265400
That's a matter of categorization. Meditation posture is a pain in back, literally, but helps clear the mind which can reduce suffering at a given time. There a - is a +. All still fits within a hedonistic paradigm.

>>9265391
How is "better Socraties unsatisfied than a pig satisfied" compatible with the "hedonistic paradigm"? Please retake Phi101

>>9265405
Food and Foucault are the same neurologically: +'s

>>9265411
Mill was just plain prejudiced. He had no basis for that claim.

>>9265410
Well yeah, if you redefine hedonism so that anything a person appreciates is pleasure and anything they reject is pain I suppose that's true.

But that makes "hedonism" the most meaningless word ever and totally divorces it from its philosophical tradition.

>>9265418
No, it simply is that way neurologically, and by acknowledging we do render the word meaningless, we eliminate the false lines drawn between different actions and their consequences, allowing for a clearer discussion of "what is the good life".

>>9265424
Do not*

>>9265424
I hope you realize the concept of "hedonism" is far, far older than neurology. It is not "simply that way neurologically", it is the way ancient Greek hedonists defined it and I'm not sure what you're seeking to accomplish by separating it from them.

>allowing for a clearer discussion of "what is the good life".
Except it's not clearer at all if you think literally whatever you want can be a + or -.
This has not cleared up any thing, it's just regular old subjectivism in different terms that for some reason wants to redefine hedonism.

>>9265417
You have spectacularly missed the point.

>>9265413
>>9265424
"Hedonism" in the sense of the intellectual tradition refers to specific sorts of pleasure, but I guess you already knew this.

By redefining "hedonistic pleasure" to refer to "all pleasure," you're using "hedonistic paradigm" to mean "the way the human brain works," so your statement essentially is "anything anyone finds worth doing fits into the way the human brain works from a neurological point of view." This is a trite and unnecessary observation.

>>9265438
>>9265445
The reason it's not a trivial statement is it pulls back the curtain on the lie of the prejudicial hierarchy of goods assumed by "hedonism = bad". There's certainly a delicate balance of various +'s in a good life, and the aforementioned quoted discriminates against that.

>>9265486
You mean just like subjectivists have been saying since forever?

>>9265486
Why all this linguistic tomfoolery if all you mean is "Hedonism isn't necessarily bad"? And who exactly assumes that "hedonism = bad"? It seems to me most modern marketing techniques appeal to hedonistic (in the strict sense, not the way you're using it) impulses.

>>9265503
No, a strict subjectivist would deny a balance of +'s determined by biology and experience.

>>9265506
A strict subjectivist would totally agree with you given that you already think what constitutes +'s and -'s is entirely subjective.

>>9265504
It's not that hedonism isn't necessarily bad, it's that we're all necessarily subject to this enriched neurological paradigm of hedonism.
>>9265510
A subjectivist would not allow for biology to predetermine any sort of set value system

>>9265516
>A subjectivist would not allow for biology to predetermine any sort of set value system
Why wouldn't they?
It's still ultimately subjective.

Not to mention subjectivist determinists are the thing.

>>9265521
>It's still ultimately subjective
Genes are the universal, the individual is the subject. If genes are in play, then it exceeded the subject.

>>9265531
Except ones own genes are a part of ones own self, ergo it's the subject.

It's not like everyone has the same genes.

>>9265554
Right, it's the universal--98% and change--they would object to.

>>9265558
They wouldn't though, as your values are still subjective.

Do you think subjectivists think everything is just a product of your conscious choices?

>>9265560
Values derived from common DNA are not subjective, as they originate in the object.

>>9265567
No, they're unique to the subject.

I'm not sure why you wince so much at being called "subjectivist", it's fundamentally what you are.

>>9265336
Nietzsche's judgment on Epicurus says it all (almost) :
- I'm the one who finally properly understands Epicurus and I pay tribute to him
- however he was still a manlet because he tried to avoid pain and that is pathetic

>>9265591
At this point there's two possibilities: either you're embarrassed you're wrong or you really believe that values derived from an [object] are not [objective]. Either way, the convos no longer profitable.

>>9265620
Let me put it to you this way.

Do you believe that there is one objective, universal set of values?
Yes? Then congrats, you're not a subjectivist. But this totally contradicts what you said here.
>>9265410
No? Then sorry, but you're a textbook subjectivist.

>you really believe that values derived from an [object] are not [objective]
I don't know how you can be this retarded. "Subjective" in terms of values is based on individual perception, if you think different individuals can reach different conclusions on their values and not be wrong then you're a fucking subjectivist. Jesus.

Not to mention as said earlier there are subjectivists who are also determinists. This is not new.

>>9265391
>>We are ape-machines built with + and - categories to guide action to preserve the genes.
Only the stupidest betas claim this

>>9265336
just live your life dude lol

>>9265642
Instead of addressing your doubling down with made up contradictions, I'll address your real point... just because you were wrong doesn't mean you're stupid and everyone hates you. You are loved and you have worth. Does that take the sting out of it? Good because I'm moving on.

File: 1489711200207.jpg (288KB, 713x1024px) Image search: [Google]

288KB, 713x1024px

>>9265667
Flawless comeback.

>>9265336
>Nietzsche EXPOSED filthy aristotelian