Hedonism vs. Asceticism

[Straw Dog]

Many religious and philosophical systems tend to emphasize asceticism. Self-denial is considered to be the only principled way of living.

Is this necessarily the case? What makes it virtuous under all circumstances?

Hedonism is probably one of the most basic human values. It simply means seeking pleasure for its own sake. This doesn't necessarily entail overindulgence. Different schools of thought have developed around this value.

What's wrong with seeking pleasure? Is hedonism necessarily opposed to virtuous conduct?

 

[Vouthon]

Asceticism is not inherently free from taint. It can be conducive to living a citizenly life of virtue, nonetheless it can also be a possible outlet for pomposity and self-love. It all depends on whether a person uses it as a means to an end or as in effect an end in itself. If one denies oneself a pleasure, out of say solidarity with those less privileged, or to help a person gain control over a habit that is obsessing them and disturbing their mental calm, then asceticism of some degree can be a very positive activity. Everything in moderation. Hedonism, well it would rest upon your understanding of the word. Its a very charged term. If by it you meant something along the lines of Epicurean ethics, then no I would see nothing wrong with it. I think that Epicureanism is a beautiful philosophy. It would lead an adherent to practise a life that is pleasant but not excessive, wise, free from mental anxiety or disturbance about pain (although critically not trying to deny it), calm, living attentively in the present, without any superstitious ideas and with the conviction of neither harming others nor being harmed oneself.

Epicurean hedonism must therefore be distinguished from a self-serving, consumerist hedonism which is enslaved to the perpetual avoidance of pain (a reality of life that must at least be endured and accepted in some capacity) and the endless craving for self-satisfaction as the highest end in itself. This cannot lead to true happiness, because it is conditioned. One should have an inner peace no matter whether the wind be foul or fair. This kind of hedonism tries to avoid "foul winds" and seek only for the fairest. It is an unrealistic, unrewarding philosophy that leads to self-absorption and is as a result antithetical to a spiritual life.

 

[Vouthon]

Jesus Christ is for me an excellent exemplar of a balance between asceticism and hedonism.

On the one hand, he strongly objected to pompous, ritualized asceticism of a kind that desired publicity for an over-played (and therefore facetious) "holiness":

(Matthew 6) "Beware of practicing your piety before others in order to be seen by them; for then you have no reward from your Father in heaven. 2 "So whenever you give alms, do not sound a trumpet before you, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, so that they may be praised by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward. 3 But when you give alms, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, 4 so that your alms may be done in secret; and your Father who sees in secret will reward you. 5 And whenever you pray, do not be like the hypocrites; for they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and at the street corners, so that they may be seen by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward. 6 But whenever you pray, go into your room and shut the door and pray to your Father who is in secret; and your Father who sees in secret will reward you. 7 "When you are praying, do not heap up empty phrases as the Gentiles do; for they think that they will be heard because of their many words. 8 Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him. 9 Pray then in this way: Our Father in heaven, hallowed be your name. 10 Your kingdom come. Your will be done, on earth as it is in heaven. 11 Give us this day our daily bread. 12 And forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors. 13 And do not bring us to the time of trial, but rescue us from the evil one. 14 For if you forgive others their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you; 15 but if you do not forgive others, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses. 16 And whenever you fast, do not look dismal, like the hypocrites, for they disfigure their faces so as to show others that they are fasting. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward. 17 But when you fast, put oil on your head and wash your face, 18 so that your fasting may be seen not by others but by your Father who is in secret; and your Father who sees in secret will reward you.

Yet Jesus did "fast" in the wilderness when he tried to fight the advances of Satan (which one might see spiritually as a metaphor for combating one's own faults and inner demons).

Likewise, he was accused by his opponents of being a drunkard and hedonistic reveller, because he did not lead an overly ascetic life of complete renunciation:

"...the Son of Man has come eating and drinking, and you say, ‘Look, a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners! But Wisdom is justified by all her children..."

- Jesus Christ (Luke 7:33-34)

In Jesus we see a holiness that is active, worldly and lives life to the full (short though it was in Jesus' case). Christ did not differ in his dress and dietetic habits from the mass of the people. Jesus went to weddings, drank wine, ate at banquets, and politely accepted the hospitality of all classes for the purpose of doing them good. They accused Christ of being a glutton and a wine-bibber, an immoral drunkard, a worldly, footloose vagabond who hung around with "suspicious people" and the renegades of society.

I think that he struck a perfect balance between the two, personally.

 

[Straw Dog]

Everything in moderation.

Hmm... so perhaps both moderate asceticism and moderate hedonism have similar degrees of overall utility.

Epicurean hedonism must therefore be distinguished from a self-serving, consumerist hedonism which is enslaved to the perpetual avoidance of pain (a reality of life that must at least be endured and accepted in some capacity) and the endless craving for self-satisfaction as the highest end in itself. This cannot lead to true happiness, because it is conditioned. One should have an inner peace no matter whether the wind be foul or fair. This kind of hedonism tries to avoid "foul winds" and seek only for the fairest. It is an unrealistic, unrewarding philosophy that leads to self-absorption and is as a result antithetical to a spiritual life.

I see what you're getting at, but am unsure that consumer-hedonism is actually concerned with avoiding pain at all. Advertising and artificial desires just help to perpetuate endless craving invoked by groundless opinion. Even without them, we still need meditation and philosophy to ascertain the ends of human desires and to train the mind to become appropriately contented and joyful.

Accepting pain is definitely a critical aspect to any rational hedonism. Sometimes enduring hardships is necessary in order to secure or increase the likelihood of anticipated pleasure. I draw a great deal of inspiration from Epicureanism, but also find flaws or shortcomings. The classic formulation just treats pleasure as the absence of pain. I think that there is room for positive pleasure.

 

[DallasApple]

Of course we are going to have to accept we we will have pain and discomfort in life .We are born in practical shock..

Vouthon I agree with you though.As well as Straw dog.There is nothing inherently "wrong" with balancing pleasure verses pain ..or seeking pleasure ..

I watch little children and animals too..they are not"wrong" when they seek to relieve certain discomforts or seek out "comfort' just for pleasure...

 

[Vouthon]

Hmm... so perhaps both moderate asceticism and moderate hedonism have similar degrees of overall utility.

Ever heard of the "golden mean"?

In philosophy, especially that of Aristotle, the golden mean is the desirable middle between two extremes, one of excess and the other of deficiency. For example courage, a virtue, if taken to excess would manifest as recklessness and if deficient as cowardice.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_mean_(philosophy)

The Bible, in the very positively hedonistic book of Ecclesiases, essentially taught an early version of this dictum:

Ecclesiastes 7:15-18

New Revised Standard Version (NRSV)

The Riddles of Life

In my vain life I have seen everything; there are righteous people who perish in their righteousness, and there are wicked people who prolong their life in their evildoing. 16 Do not be too righteous, and do not act too wise; why should you destroy yourself? 17 Do not be too wicked, and do not be a fool; why should you die before your time? 18 It is good that you should take hold of the one, without letting go of the other; for the one who fears God shall succeed with both.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Asceticism isn't a virtue in Satanism. I personally think that exploring sensate reality through things like sex, alcohol, drug use, pleasure, pain, etc. are valid paths to knowledge and worthy of being explored. It's unnatural and, in some cases, unhealthy to abstain from the pleasures of the flesh (sex, masturbation, etc.). But care must be taken to not allow your desires and impulses rule over you. Having something else control you would be a negative thing in Satanic thought.

But focus on hedonism, to me, means that you're still living within a dualistic paradigm.

 

[Vouthon]

Asceticism isn't a virtue in Satanism.

As I said before, I believe that one can actually have one's cake without eating it by balancing the two, not letting go of one for the sake of the other. It is not good to become enslaved to anything. Nothing should be your idol or master whether that be your own excessive "lofty", otherworldly tendencies or your basic animal desires. Anything taken to an idolatrous extreme consumes you.

I personally think that exploring sensate reality through things like sex, alcohol, drug use, pleasure, pain, etc. are valid paths to knowledge and worthy of being explored.

Well, I won't deny that a little of what you fancy does you good Not "too much" though. Ultimately, we all die. Ultimately nothing is absolute in this life. There is no permanent pleasure to be found from short-term releases of feel-good hormones. It can become addictive and therefore actually painful in the long run if an element of restraint is not made available. Everything in moderation.

It's unnatural and, in some cases, unhealthy to abstain from the pleasures of the flesh (sex, masturbation, etc.). But care must be taken to not allow your desires and impulses rule over you. Having something else control you would be a negative thing in Satanic thought.

Wow, you've beat me to the punch I said much the same above from my Christian understanding. Perhaps Satanism and Christianity are not so dissimilar as I might have thought. I agree with you.

But focus on hedonism, to me, means that you're still living within a dualistic paradigm.

As in a "this or that" kind of thinking? One should seek a balance between the two. That "balance" will of course differ, likely, from person to person based upon their own natural abilities, life experiences, faults, cravings, religious beliefs and so on.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Wow, you've beat me to the punch I said much the same above from my Christian understanding. Perhaps Satanism and Christianity are not so dissimilar as I might have thought. I agree with you.

I think it's because most Christians aren't ascetics. They're not monks or nuns or penitents wearing hairshirts and whipping themselves to mortify the flesh. I think mainstream Christians today, generally speaking, believe in having a fun time like everyone else does.

But then there's the whole issue of dualism between the flesh and in spirit in traditional Christian thought, which I reject. I used to be Catholic, by the way.

As in a "this or that" kind of thinking? One should seek a balance between the two.

Pretty much.

 

[DallasApple]

I think it's because most Christians aren't ascetics. They're not monks or nuns or penitents wearing hairshirts and whipping themselves to mortify the flesh. I think mainstream Christians today, generally speaking, believe in having a fun time like everyone else does.

Actually? The ones I hang and identify with want simple things and that includes joy.And that is their wish for every one else.Including rejecting pain inflicted on them by others././AND they like things like eating... Oh and sex.

Enjoying is not "taboo" ..Giving and receiving love. Is the theme with my Christian girlfriends...

Enduring? Yes of course..But life's goal is not to "endure" .That defeats the purpose of the life we have been given.Especially if we are trying to practice/mimic heaven on earth.

 

[Vouthon]

I think it's because most Christians aren't ascetics. They're not monks or nuns or penitents wearing hairshirts and whipping themselves to mortify the flesh. I think mainstream Christians today, generally speaking, believe in having a fun time like everyone else does.

See, I tend to believe that you might just have a somewhat jaundiced view of true "asceticism". What does it mean to be ascetic? The word "ascetic" comes from the ancient Greek term askēsis, which simply means training or exercise. The original usage therefore does not refer to extreme self-denial or punishment of the flesh. It signifies, rather, a process of honing one's "self-control" by striving towards a balanced, spiritual life in which passions do not maser you but you master them.

We all know that human beings have aspirations. In other words we have a set of genuine desires – ‘immortal longings’, to use the Shakesperean tongue of phrase - that aim for some degree of fulfilled happiness that is innate in us as persons. Most people would agree that there is more to life than eating, sleeping, getting drunk and making love. Not that these things are to be rejected, they just aren't "enough" on their own to satisfy man completely. They are more a means to than end rather than ends in their own right. They keep us occupied, as they should but they do not in themselves answer our greatest concerns or needs, for example, the grief of our impending death; the fragility of our existence in an ever changing, unstable universe or our craving for companionship and fear of being lonely. We want friendship, careers, peace of mind, social occasions to drink with others and healthy, committed sexual relationships in the long run (if not the short run for a lot of people ).

Then, there are other "immortal longings" such as some kind of abstract feeling that life has more to it than even friendship, edifying work, productive property and matrimony/cohabitation with a partner.

There is a great existential dimension which leads us to feel that there must be "more" still for us to aspire too.

And when we get to this stage, we reflect upon a serious of questions of a kind outlined in Nostra Aetate:

"...Men expect from the various religions answers to the unsolved riddles of the human condition, which today, even as in former times, deeply stir the hearts of men: What is man? What is the meaning, the aim of our life? What is moral good, what is sin? Whence suffering and what purpose does it serve? Which is the road to true happiness?...What, finally, is that ultimate inexpressible mystery which encompasses our existence: whence do we come, and where are we going?

From ancient times down to the present, there is found among various peoples a certain perception of that hidden power which hovers over the course of things and over the events of human history; at times some indeed have come to the recognition of a Supreme Being, or even of a Father. This perception and recognition penetrates their lives with a profound religious sense....

Religions found everywhere try to counter the restlessness of the human heart, each in its own manner, by proposing "ways," comprising teachings, rules of life, and sacred rites..."

- Nostra Aetate, decree of the Second Vatican Council (1965)

Yes, this is where the religious element in man arises in the context of those "immortal longings" that Shakespeare refers to.

True asceticism is not about the rejection of life's pleasures, it is about reserving some space for those "immortal longings" in one's busy life on this earth.

An ascetic does not deny the flesh, he simply recognizes that there is something more than it. He does not reject pleasure, he enjoys it but simply recognizes that it isn't in itself absolute. There is always going to be something "more", something "else".

It is like a tiered wedding cake with many different layers. One does not reject or do away with the layer beneath, one simply builds upon it in the striving towards greater perfection.

One cannot allow oneself to become too obsessed with those "immortal longings", or one misses the joy of corporeal pleasures. Likewise one cannot become too obsessed with those everyday, carnal pleasures or one misses out on those "immortal longings".

Do you get my meaning? Balance, moderation is the key.

 

[Uberpod]

It seems to me that hedonism is akin to the pursuit of happiness. If this pursuit is carried out while treating other humans as equal agents, then it is nothing but moral.

 

[Straw Dog]

Yes, this is where the religious element in man arises in the context of those "immortal longings" that Shakespeare refers to.

True asceticism is not about the rejection of life's pleasures, it is about reserving some space for those "immortal longings" in one's busy life on this earth.

An ascetic does not deny the flesh, he simply recognizes that there is something more than it. He does not reject pleasure, he enjoys it but simply recognizes that it isn't in itself absolute. There is always going to be something "more", something "else".

It is like a tiered wedding cake with many different layers. One does not reject or do away with the layer beneath, one simply builds upon it in the striving towards greater perfection.

One cannot allow oneself to become too obsessed with those "immortal longings", or one misses the joy of corporeal pleasures. Likewise one cannot become too obsessed with those everyday, carnal pleasures or one misses out on those "immortal longings".

Do you get my meaning? Balance, moderation is the key.

Thanks for fleshing out the ascetic aspect here. Although it is often considered an antonym for hedonism, asceticism really does just refer to learning self-control and regulation of desires. Temperance doesn't mean that we should eliminate desires completely.

The human microcosm is often a hodge-podge of conflicting impulses. This can lend itself towards destructive ends if treated as having definite internal divisions, rather than as complementary oppositions leading to transformation. Balance is key, but I don't really believe in achieving permanent peace or static perfection. Seeking it can even disrupt one's peace of mind in the moment. Furthermore, disharmony can be a catalyst for positive growth. We live in a state of non-equilibrium, but that's groovy.

 

[Jainarayan]

Jesus Christ is for me an excellent exemplar of a balance between asceticism and hedonism.

On the one hand, he strongly objected to pompous, ritualized asceticism of a kind that desired publicity for an over-played (and therefore facetious) "holiness":




Yet Jesus did "fast" in the wilderness when he tried to fight the advances of Satan (which one might see spiritually as a metaphor for combating one's own faults and inner demons).

Likewise, he was accused by his opponents of being a drunkard and hedonistic reveller, because he did not lead an overly ascetic life of complete renunciation:




In Jesus we see a holiness that is active, worldly and lives life to the full (short though it was in Jesus' case). Christ did not differ in his dress and dietetic habits from the mass of the people. Jesus went to weddings, drank wine, ate at banquets, and politely accepted the hospitality of all classes for the purpose of doing them good. They accused Christ of being a glutton and a wine-bibber, an immoral drunkard, a worldly, footloose vagabond who hung around with "suspicious people" and the renegades of society.

I think that he struck a perfect balance between the two, personally.

Jesus took the Middle Way. I daresay (from a non-Christian perspective of course ) he was another appearance of the Buddha, who appears again and again, or a buddha or bodhisattva for that time and place. Living Buddha, Living Christ by Thich Nhat Hanh.

 

[LuisDantas]

I always say hedonism defined as an excess. That said, seeking pleasure is a practical need, as is frugality.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

This all boils down to the screwed up human propensity to think that if something feels good it must be wrong, and it is virtuous to deprive yourself. Ascetics are nothing more than people for whom pleasurable things don't outweigh the guilt and shame they cause. People do what works for them - ascetics included. It's simply easier and more comfortable for them to live as humorless, joyless lumps than to engage in a vibrant existence with the rest of humanity.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

Many religious and philosophical systems tend to emphasize asceticism. Self-denial is considered to be the only principled way of living.

Is this necessarily the case? What makes it virtuous under all circumstances?

Hedonism is probably one of the most basic human values. It simply means seeking pleasure for its own sake. This doesn't necessarily entail overindulgence. Different schools of thought have developed around this value.

What's wrong with seeking pleasure? Is hedonism necessarily opposed to virtuous conduct?

Pain is a great teacher of man.

 

[Straw Dog]

Pain is a great teacher of man.

Probably the first teacher, but most likely not the last.

 

[Straw Dog]

There is nothing inherently "wrong" with balancing pleasure verses pain ..or seeking pleasure ..

I watch little children and animals too..they are not"wrong" when they seek to relieve certain discomforts or seek out "comfort' just for pleasure...

Good point. It is better to observe nature more rather than just speculate abstractly.

 

[Straw Dog]

This all boils down to the screwed up human propensity to think that if something feels good it must be wrong, and it is virtuous to deprive yourself. Ascetics are nothing more than people for whom pleasurable things don't outweigh the guilt and shame they cause. People do what works for them - ascetics included. It's simply easier and more comfortable for them to live as humorless, joyless lumps than to engage in a vibrant existence with the rest of humanity.

So you think that ascetics may derive some comfort or contentment from their practices, but not the same degree of joy and playfulness as the rest of us?