Viewing Thread:
"Stoicism vs. Hedonism"

Where is the flaw in developing one's mind and subordinating the trivialities of physical existence?
Isn't it this identification of the mind which attests to our existence, helps us to perceive the world and find a true equilibrium, a balance between our physical needs and mental tranquillity?
If this is so, then why is stoicism not readily recognised as the best starting point (method) in life? Or is destructive hedonism all that most are capable of…
any thoughts?

Where is the flaw in developing one's mind and subordinating the trivialities of physical existence?
Isn't it this identification of the mind which attests to our existence, helps us to perceive the world and find a true equilibrium, a balance between our physical needs and mental tranquillity?
If this is so, then why is stoicism not readily recognised as the best starting point (method) in life? Or is destructive hedonism all that most are capable of…
any thoughts?

It is part of the human condition to search for pleasure and be partial to our emotions. Therefore Stoicism, in my opinion, isn't desirable for humans and therefore not a good starting point in life. However, it does have its uses when objective nature is required.

Well I don't know about that, but what I think the question should focus on a little more is why do Walkers insist on trying nasty new flavours?

It is my belief that there is no such thing as 'the human condition'... a mature human is sufficiently equipped to form his/her own condition (i.e. there are several human conditions).
Accurate objectivity is always more beneficial (to the individual and wider society) than partiality to emotions and pleasure. In fact, it is this very partiality that is the cause of most of society's troubles, no?

To an extent I agree with you. However, I believe that the development of self (a "condition"), or the forming of "human nature" is a requirement that human's must fulfil. The concept of pleasure or happiness derives not only from human nature (which can be manipulated by a mature human), but also from pre-defined parameters, which limit the human capacity (and therefore making true stoicism unreachable). For example, all humans naturally should feel pain and therefore logically strive away from stimuli which has the potential of inducing pain. These pre-defined physical elements of humanity mean that hedonism is consequent to pre-programmed understanding of the desirability to avoid pain; and therefore attempt to be in a state of pleasure (assuming the two are opposites or direct alternatives).

Despite objectivity and stoicism being more desirable in creating a disciplined and highly structured world (and creating more perfected individuals), it is not easily within the capabilities of a human.

The "pre-defined parameters" you refer to are peripheral when viewed in conjunction with man's power of reason. Indeed, through rationality man may render these ‘parameters’ inconsequential.
Pain and pleasure are two extremes experienced by those living in tune with pure physicality and without much insight; the stoic (the rational man/woman) evaluates the existence of pleasure and pain and chooses a balance (with which he/she continues to achieve a chosen purpose).
By your argument, if I am not 'happy' I must be 'sad'. Yet, with greater insight and categorisation one may find a more rational 'alternative', in this case that alternative would be expressed best by the words 'simple contentment'; the same is true of the above ‘pleasure/pain’ theory.
Objectivity and stoicism are not easily within the reach of those completely subject to their animalistic whims (children and youths being the principle examples)- I will not deny this. However, the concept of stoicism is practical; many have lived their lives by its tenets.

Hmm..looks like a "Life" topic. I'll be bothered a little later.

J Nash wrote:
> It is my belief that there is no such thing as 'the human
> condition'... a mature human is sufficiently equipped to form his/her
> own condition (i.e. there are several human conditions).

Although you could say that everyone will, eventually, reach the same conclusion - in a controlled environment, anyway, which will never happen. But wouldn't most people arrive at the same, logical, condition? As best for themselves?

> Accurate objectivity is always more beneficial (to the individual and
> wider society) than partiality to emotions and pleasure. In fact, it
> is this very partiality that is the cause of most of society's
> troubles, no?

But objectifying stuff goes some way to deindividualising it - people become numbers and, as such, almost void of value.

Applying objective reason to everything undermines the higher emotions contributing to a largely civillised culture.
See: Jonathan Swift's "Modest Proposal" - most hilarious satire to the Age of Reason.

Personally, I like the idea that the Devil (who possesses the ability to deceive us) has written all supposed “holy” literature, and has passed it off as the work of God. God’s test is therefore to view the intellectual activity of each human, and to see if we fall for the Devil’s deception. All those who fall for it, and believe it to be the word of God, are punished with an eternity in Hell. Those who use the intellectual tools God has given us, and reject the Devil’s literature, are rewarded with Heaven. Therefore the real winners are Atheists/Agnostics.

(c) J nash 2005 ;)

I'd argue that, regardless of the Bible's origins, Atheists/Agnostics are the winners anyway.