What is the ultimate of philosophy?

[SaintAugustine]

The ultimate foundation of philosophy is solipsism and extensions thereof, the ultimate tool of philosophy is logic and the ultimate purpose of philosophy is to increase one's understanding of what is, and can be.

yes, but will that make me happier?

 

[InformedIgnorance]

Happier? Since when is that the end game?

Well if so inclined then I suppose Epicurus' Hedonism is the way to go.


Oh and I forgot to mention in my previous spiel that the ultimate appeaser in philosophy is faith.

 

[Me Myself]

This one.

 

[SaintAugustine]

Happier? Since when is that the end game?

Well if so inclined then I suppose Epicurus' Hedonism is the way to go.


Oh and I forgot to mention in my previous spiel that the ultimate appeaser in philosophy is faith.

without hesitation, Epicurus had a firm grip on the whole game.

 

[InformedIgnorance]

Really? I dislike it; Hedonism is a philosophy that elevates the self (particularly in the short term, though you can make allowances to enable a longer term Hedonism I suppose) at the expense of society; it is a philosophy dedicated to consuming everything that can grant benefit to the self, regardless of the consequences to anyone else.

Even if you make extensions to the philosophy to account for a group (or even society) based hedonism, it does not even attempt to address distribution of the benefits or costs of that hedonism, instead it is merely concerned with maximising pleasure and satisfaction, minimising discomfort - if the pain of all ingrown toenails could be forced upon an individual or group of individual's thus preventing the pain to everyone else yet killing the subject, hedonism suggests that would be perfectly fine; never minding the gross inequity of the distribution of outcomes.

 

[SaintAugustine]

Really? I dislike it; Hedonism is a philosophy that elevates the self (particularly in the short term, though you can make allowances to enable a longer term Hedonism I suppose) at the expense of society; it is a philosophy dedicated to consuming everything that can grant benefit to the self, regardless of the consequences to anyone else.

this is the Epicurus that I am familiar with..taken from wikipedia:


For Epicurus, the purpose of philosophy was to attain the happy, tranquil life, characterized by ataraxia—peace and freedom from fear—and aponia—the absence of pain—and by living a self-sufficient life surrounded by friends.

Epicurus explicitly warned against overindulgence because it often leads to pain.

 

[InformedIgnorance]

I am not talking about OVERindulgence, but rather indulgence; hedonism and consumerism are very closely related, hedonism is a philosophy that drives unsustainable consumption regardless of the cost (so long as that cost is EXTERNAL)

 

[Straw Dog]

Aristotle said, Happiness? or is how would we then live?

I won't eat or drink..till I get an answer that satisfies me..from this board.

I would think the ultimate aim would be wisdom, in all its facets and applications. Probably the first wise thing you can do is drink when you're thirsty and eat when you're hungry.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Happier? Since when is that the end game?

Well if so inclined then I suppose Epicurus' Hedonism is the way to go.

His philosophy is frequently misrepresented. Epicurus himself, in a letter to Menoeceus(preserved by Diogenes Laertius in his Lives), clearly indicates he was aware of such accusations, but claims he has been misunderstood:
Ὅταν οὖν λέγωμεν ἡδονὴν τέλος ὑπάρχειν, οὐ τὰς τῶν ἀσώτων ἡδονὰς καὶ τὰς ἐν ἀπολαύσει κειμένας λέγομεν, ὥς τινες ἀγνοοῦντες καὶ οὐχ ὁμολογοῦντες ἤ κακῶς ἐκδεχόμενοι νομίζουσιν, ἀλλὰ τὸ μήτε ἀλγεῖν κατὰ σῶμα μήτε ταράττεσθαι κατὰ ψυχήν· οὐ γὰρ πότοι καὶ κῶμοι συνείροντες οὐδ’ ἀπολαύσεις παίδων καὶ γυναικῶν οὐδ’ ἰχθύων καὶ τῶν ἄλλων, ὅσα φέρει πολυτελὴς τράπεζα, τὸν ἡδὺν γεννᾷ βίον, ἀλλὰ νήφων λογισμὸς καὶ τὰς αἰτίας ἐξερευνῶν πάσης αἱρέσεως καὶ φυγῆς καὶ τὰς δόξας ἐξελαύνων, ἐξ ὧν πλεῖστος τὰς ψυχὰς καταλαμβάνει θόρυβος
"So whenever we state pleasure to be the end goal, we do not mean the pleasures of prodigality and lying in sensual enjoyment (as some being ignorant and not in agreement [with our views] or understanding [them] poorly believe), but rather [we mean] neither pain in the body nor confusion in the soul. For it is not continual drinking and merrymaking, nor the pleasure of boys and women, nor of [eating] fish and other things fancy tables carry, which results in pleasant life. Rather, sober reason is the basis for deciding all choices and avoidances and freeing from false judgments, which are the greatest confusions that seize the soul."
Epicurus, then, did not advocate hedonism, at least not in the sense the word is typically used today. His doctrine should not be mistaken for a “if it feels good, do it” approach to life. Pleasure, for Epicurus, is defined by the absence of its opposite.

 

[InformedIgnorance]

Read my first post, I state the freedom from discomfort as being one of the key issues. I later use hedonism in the more commonly used sense, though perhaps I have not adequately differentiated the two; however I would however still point out that my comments on failing to address the distribution of outcomes and the driving of consumption (though, once again, not OVERconsumption) remain true for consumption is then driven in order to remove discomforts, including those psychological discomforts arising from lacking material comforts.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Read my first post, I state the freedom from discomfort as being one of the key issues. I later use hedonism in the more commonly used sense, though perhaps I have not adequately differentiated the two; however I would however still point out that my comments on failing to address the distribution of outcomes and the driving of consumption (though, once again, not OVERconsumption) remain true for consumption is then driven in order to remove discomforts, including those psychological discomforts arising from lacking material comforts.

I wasn't addressing any particular "issue/problem" with your post, merely seeking to clarify what Epicurus' philosophy was, at least to the extent we can know. Mischaracterizations of Epicuras are not just modern. A typical reaction to this basic Epicurean doctrine is exemplified in Cicero’s De Finibus Bonorum et Malorum:

Sed tamen ex eo, quod eam voluptatem, quam omnes gentes hoc nomine appellant, videtur amplexari saepe vehementius, in magnis interdum versatur angustiis, ut hominum conscientia remota nihil tam turpe sit, quod voluptatis causa non videatur esse facturus.
But still, from this [fact], that he often appears to embrace eagerly that pleasure (in the manner which all peoples mean by this word), he is sometimes situated in great difficulties, such that there is nothing he would not do for the sake of pleasure, if he were not detected.


However, so completely is pleasure defined by Epicurus as the absence of pain and suffering that he writes:
ἡδονῆς χρείαν ἔχομεν ὅταν ἐκ τοῦ μὴ παρεῖναι τὴν ἡδονὴν ἀλγῶμεν, ὅταν δὲ μὴ ἀλγῶμεν, οὐκέτι τῆς ἡδονῆς δεόμεθα
"We have need of pleasure whenever we are suffering because pleasure is absent, but when we are not suffering, no longer do we require pleasure"

Epicurus in no way encapsulates the modern conception of a hedonist. Pleasure is simply a matter of fulfilling natural needs (e.g. hunger and thirst) without which suffering would inevitably follow. Happiness is also an absence of spiritual and mental tumult. Just as a balanced, well-fed body is a necessary condition for happiness, so too is a well-fed and ordered mind a requirement. For Epicurus, equilibrium and homeostasis of mind and body together are both necessary and sufficient conditions for happiness.

I'm not trying to say you misrepresented Epicurus, simply to clarify what we know of his philosophy.

 

[InformedIgnorance]

Yes I understand your point, however he fails to adequately define 'suffering' to such an extent that it facilitates the drive to modern hedonism in that the feelings resulting from unmet desire for or expectation of pleasure can be perceived as 'suffering' (though such feelings were probably never intended to be viewed as such), hence to alleviate this 'suffering' we require pleasure.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Yes I understand your point, however he fails to adequately define 'suffering' to such an extent that it facilitates the drive to modern hedonism in that the feelings resulting from unmet desire for or expectation of pleasure can be perceived as 'suffering' (though such feelings were probably never intended to be viewed as such), hence to alleviate this 'suffering' we require pleasure.

It is, I think, important to distinguish between what Epicurus "failed" to do and what are sources for his philosophy fail to address. The important point, however, is that from what we can tell hedonism in Epicurus is a path away from suffering through satisfying necessary needs and then using "reason" to determine the correct moral choice. "Unmet desires" which are not essential to human existence are to be addressed by the application or reason to achieve a particular mental/moral clarity. Hardly a well-defined solution, of course, but the drive to modern hedonism merely requires an understanding that people want what they want at any particular moment. Epicurus, along with more philosophers, demonstrate that this is not only the "ultimate of philosophy" but will fail to result in the happiness sought.

 

[InformedIgnorance]

I agree. Yet the failure to differentiate the types of 'needs' or discomfort which are legitimate targets for alleviation through pleasure from those that are not is a massive issue; thus Epicurus' Hedonism easily became associated with the more modern concept Hedonism largely because of such an oversight.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

I agree. Yet the failure to differentiate the types of 'needs' or discomfort which are legitimate targets for alleviation through pleasure from those that are not is a massive issue; thus Epicurus' Hedonism easily became associated with the more modern concept Hedonism largely because of such an oversight.

Very true. Once you say "pleasure is the absence of discomfort" it becomes all to easy to say "you know, it feels very uncomfortable not to be shooting up" and justify the behavior by using the basis of his argument and ignoring or "massaging" the nuances.

 

[idav]

The ultimate philosophy is the philosophy of oneness.

 

[Quagmire]

Yes I understand your point, however he fails to adequately define 'suffering' to such an extent that it facilitates the drive to modern hedonism in that the feelings resulting from unmet desire for or expectation of pleasure can be perceived as 'suffering' (though such feelings were probably never intended to be viewed as such), hence to alleviate this 'suffering' we require pleasure.

Not necessarily. If unmet desires are causing problems (suffering) at least two options we have are:

---do whatever you need to do to gratify those desires.

---let those desires go.

From what I can see, that first solution tends to cause more suffering than it alleviates.

As far as Epicurus goes, I doubt there's been a single philosopher, sage, religious reformer, or "saint" who's teachings haven't been twisted into a self-sanctioning program for unrestrained self-indulgence.

On the surface at least (which is as far as many people ever look) Epicurus' philosophy lends itself to this more easily than most.

Ain't his fault. People can take the teachings of an ascetic and do the same things.

 

[PaulTheMaul]

The first options can (and usually tends to) escalate problems into new and unseen heights, so I really do not recommend it.

 

[SaintAugustine]

Is there a ToE of Philosophy?
A Oneness has someone mentioned..that embraces all philosophies...