I just thought the point about celibacy makes sense in a Schopenhauerian context. — schopenhauer1

Perhaps so, but it doesn't make much sense to me in general. It seems, ironically, an excessive response to perceived excess, and one which is likely to result in increased stress due to unfulfilled desires - and to what end? Is that supposed to be a guide to self-improvement or misery? Or perhaps both. All I have to do is live a life of misery, and I'll be a better person.

This is a good point. I have never understood how the ascetic is supposed to forget the reason they are being an ascetic in the first place. Case in point: celibacy, if you are celibate, chances are you will have pent-up sexual urges and desires which will only remind you of the very thing you are trying to evade. It seems that asceticism is a reaction to a distasteful environment rather than a genuine sustainable way of life.

There is another aspect to the sacrifice of literal sexual activity which celibacy can entail: Sublimation. In psychoanalytic theory sublimation is the diversion of libido into noninstinctual channels. People who are deeply committed to a cause often sublimate their sexual energies. They subconsciously divert their sexual energies into their art, their political campaigns, their business, their architectural practice, and so on.

You might say (per Freud) that civilization is powered by sublimated sexual energies. If we all pursued our most natural inclinations, we would still be hunter-gatherers living in caves and screwing our brains out. But, as it happens, we are not, have not been, and won't be.

There has been many a frustrated mate who found that having sex with their partner was just about impossible, because their mate's career (art, science, politics, law, the military, whatever...) always came first. When the mate finally got home from the office, the studio, the battle field, the store, whatever... they were too tired to make love. And when they were well rested they were reading about art, science, politics, law, the military, whatever... or they were on the phone all the time.

As Mahler said of Alma Mahler, "I'm writing Das Lied von der Erde, And she only wants to make love" for Christ's sake.

Perhaps so, but it doesn't make much sense to me in general. It seems, ironically, an excessive response to perceived excess, and one which is likely to result in increased stress due to unfulfilled desires - and to what end? Is that supposed to be a guide to self-improvement or misery? Or perhaps both. All I have to do is live a life of misery, and I'll be a better person. — Sapientia

You'd have to ask Thorongil his reasoning. I think the point is to get off the merry-go-round of desire altogether. Whether that can actually happen, I do not know. But I think that is the goal. Liberation from Desire. I think the misery here is thinking that the obtaining of desires will make you satisfied when everything is in flux and impermanent. What seems satisfying at one point, may not be later and so forth. This is a long journey to stop the flux- diminishing it to null or near null so that one is at peace just "being" without becoming. Asceticism, I guess is the Iron Man's way of getting to this state. Someone who takes this route does not think that dinky meditation exercises to calm the mind alone is going to do it. Full mind and body has to be involved in diminishing the individual's thirst for the illusion of satisfaction. But, I don't know. I don't practice this nor necessarily think it will work, but clearly some do and perhaps it does or has. I'm just giving some reasoning of why someone might go to great lengths in ascetic practice. I would imagine the hermit living in the woods, meditating on nothingness, starving to death, but being in some sublime peaceful state where this as no affect, would be the picture here. The hermit is emaciated, dying, and is at peace with a mind and body that is fully liberated from any desire. This is a state, I would imagine that none could really grasp from the standpoint of the usual state of flux, where this would just seem like unnecessary self-torture. It is a journey only few, if anyone, can take. But again, this is an extreme version of this idea, but its ultimate conclusion perhaps.

This is a good point. I have never understood how the ascetic is supposed to forget the reason they are being an ascetic in the first place. Case in point: celibacy, if you are celibate, chances are you will have pent-up sexual urges and desires which will only remind you of the very thing you are trying to evade. It seems that asceticism is a reaction to a distasteful environment rather than a genuine sustainable way of life. — darthbarracuda

Though I don't practice nor necessarily think it to work towards its goal, I am trying to get a justification for why one might think that it could work. The theory is perhaps, if one had the fortitude to stick it out, there is a more sublime state of being desireless I guess. I don't really know what that would be like, but that is the goal. Who knows, maybe for some people they can break through. My guess is that the struggle over one's own desires diminishes with practice. But again, the complete logical conclusion is ultimately starvation. If somehow, the "saint" is fully prepared, this will not matter. They are already free from any care.

I think the point is to get off the merry-go-round of desire altogether. Whether that can actually happen, I do not know. — schopenhauer1

What do you mean you don't know? Of course it cannot happen, unless by brain damage or death.

But I think that is the goal. — schopenhauer1

A foolish goal then.

I think the misery here is thinking that the obtaining of desires will make you satisfied when everything is in flux and impermanent. What seems satisfying at one point, may not be later and so forth. — schopenhauer1

So you're implying that satisfaction is not obtainable because what "seems" to be satisfying is only temporary? Well, that's mistaken. It doesn't merely "seem" satisfying to fulfill desires; it is satisfying. And that it is only temporary is of little significance. The goal was not permanent satisfaction to begin with (which is, strictly speaking, impossible). It doesn't follow that temporary satisfaction is not worth obtaining simply by virtue of it's temporality.

This is a long journey to stop the flux- diminishing it to null or near null so that one is at peace just "being" without becoming. — schopenhauer1

But that journey only makes sense if you mistakenly assume that desire inevitability leads to a disharmony which outweighs the alternative in terms of overall benefit. It's better to live a life which includes the fulfillment of desires, within reason and despite the occasional disappointments, than the alternative which you've proposed - which is very unlikely to succeed. Someone mentioned the story of the Buddha earlier, and I agree with the moral of that story, as I understand it, which eschews this extreme and misguided way of living, without eschewing moderation and a balanced lifestyle.

- I have to get ready for work now or I'll be late!

What do you mean you don't know? Of course it cannot happen, unless by brain damage or death. — Sapientia

That's not what they think. Can we turn the rhetoric down from 11? Perhaps to a cool 2 or 3?

So you're implying that satisfaction is not obtainable because what "seems" to be satisfying is only temporary? Well, that's mistaken. It doesn't merely "seem" satisfying to fulfill desires; it is satisfying. And that it is only temporary is of little significance. The goal was not permanent satisfaction to begin with (which is, strictly speaking, impossible). It doesn't follow that temporary satisfaction is not worth obtaining simply by virtue of it's temporality. — Sapientia

The theory is that dissatisfaction comes from constant craving. I am not going to pretend that I can defend the whole corpus of ascetic thought. I'm sure others can do a much better job of this. However, from what I know cravings bring unhappiness because it can be frustrated, short-lived, and ultimately leads to more feelings of need and want. If satisfaction is temporary, then that means the longing for satisfaction is near-constant. This longing for satisfaction has its own suffering as now your happiness is dependent on obtaining something you do not already have. That is the normal state of things. This is trying to move to a non-normal state of things where one is not dependent on obtaining what one does not already have. One dies a death of starvation, but if one has prepared oneself for it, one will not find this disturbing but in some way sublime. Again, I don't know if this is ever obtainable myself. But as usual, because of the way people on this forum react (super high charged rhetoric, smugness, etc.) this now turns into a black and white issue without nuance or compromise.

But that journey only makes sense if you mistakenly assume that desire inevitability leads to a disharmony which outweighs the alternative in terms of overall benefit. It's better to live which includes the fulfillment of desires, within reason and despite the occasional disappointments, than the alternative which you've proposed - which is very unlikely to succeed. Someone mentioned the story if the Buddha earlier, and I agree with the moral of that story, as I understand it, which eschews this extreme and misguided way of living, without eschewing moderation and a balanced lifestyle. — Sapientia

For the record, it's easy to defend the common sense view of things and phrases like "everything in moderation, including moderation". This is what is so appealing about Aristotle's "Golden Mean" and pragmatists view of "do what works".

Anyways, maybe ascetics have come to some "realization" that the common sense view of things is not good. They turn away from it and this leads to asceticism. For those who think it's just fine, well, it really doesn't matter for them whether they turn away does it? Different folks, different strokes.

That's not what they think. Can we turn the rhetoric down from 11? Perhaps to a cool 2 or 3? — schopenhauer1

You've misunderstood. I didn't claim that that's what they think. That's my response to your point, which was "to get off the merry-go-round of desire altogether", and that you don't know whether that's possible. I was informing you that it's not possible, except via brain damage or death.

You've misunderstood. I didn't claim that that's what they think. That's my response to your point, which was "to get off the merry-go-round of desire altogether", and that you don't know whether that's possible. I was informing you that it's not possible, except via brain damage or death. — Sapientia

Yes, that will perhaps be the ultimate demise, but again, they supposedly wouldn't care at that point or right before they lose consciousness I guess.

I think the point is to get off the merry-go-round of desire altogether. — schopenhauer1

What do you do when you realise you're desiring not to desire?

I guess you can try to be an ascetic. Or you deal with it like most people who don't feel they can get make it very far in that route. Schopenhauer suggested contemplation in music, art, and especially tragedies to depersonalize you from the situation and see things from a non-willing standpoint. Cultivating compassion for others who are also in the same mess is another way he suggested to de-individuate one's own willing. Ultimately he thought that asceticism was essentially the way to go though his own life is an example of someone who thought they knew what the best way was, even if they did not have the patience to get there themselves. I can't imagine 19th century Schopenhauer actually biting the bullet and living in the woods naked and emaciated, beard many feet long.. dying a slow death of starvation with a slight smile on his face. And should I add, nor do I really want to :).

Yes, that will perhaps be the ultimate demise, but again, they supposedly wouldn't care at that point or right before they lose consciousness I guess. — schopenhauer1

So, by implication, self-torture and then death. Is that what you're advocating? Or are you just describing the position? And again I ask, to what end? As if some unfulfilled desires outweigh the entire value of one's life! Not only is that absurd, it is a harmful philosophy.

For the record, it's easy to defend the common sense view of things and phrases like "everything in moderation, including moderation". This is what is so appealing about Aristotle's "Golden Mean" and pragmatists view of "do what works". — schopenhauer1

Well, that may be the case, but I don't defend it because it's easy to do so; I defend it because it's what I believe. It appeals to me because it's sensible, and often yields good results - unlike the alternative position that you've been talking about, this asceticism.

The theory is that dissatisfaction comes from constant craving. I am not going to pretend that I can defend the whole corpus of ascetic thought. I'm sure others can do a much better job of this. However, from what I know cravings bring unhappiness because it can be frustrated, short-lived, and ultimately leads to more feelings of need and want. If satisfaction is temporary, then that means the longing for satisfaction is near-constant. This longing for satisfaction has its own suffering as now your happiness is dependent on obtaining something you do not already have. That is the normal state of things. This is trying to move to a non-normal state of things where one is not dependent on obtaining what one does not already have. One dies a death of starvation, but if one has prepared oneself for it, one will not find this disturbing but in some way sublime. Again, I don't know if this is ever obtainable myself. But as usual, because of the way people on this forum react (super high charged rhetoric, smugness, etc.) this now turns into a black and white issue without nuance or compromise. — schopenhauer1

But a massive fault with this theory is that it doesn't accurately portray the quality of life for most people based on their own assessment. Most people, I'd hazard to say, are content most of the time, and would affirm that that is the case, if asked. The satisfaction may be short-lived, but it's frequent, and adds to the overall value of life. And the state of unfulfillment is often insignificant, easily fulfilled, and doesn't outweigh the benefits that come with this typical lifestyle.

I think that the position that you've talked about has a skewed outlook, and it's take on life is one-sided as a result.

I also think that life is far too valuable to throw away in the manner that you've described, and that anyone who adopts such an outlook is not only kidding themselves, but missing out on life's goodness. It's a guide to self-impoverishment, rather than self-improvement.

And, as an aside, I think that you're reading into my style of writing a bit too much. I do like to be frank and to the point, and think that philosophical "problems" can often be self-created by (for example) overcomplication and a failure to accept things as they are. Believe it or not, there may actually be merit in this approach. I like to think of it as the literary equivalent of shaking some sense into my interlocutor. I'm doing this for your own good! ;)

Most people, I'd hazard to say, are content most of the time, and would affirm that that is the case, if asked. — Sapientia

You have to get up pretty early in the morning to believe this. Jesus.

The lack of contentedness seems to be more of a problem of modern day society rather than an unsolvable paradox.

I think the issue that Schopenhauer1 is bringing up is not necessarily that life is always a burden, but rather when analyzed from an objective third person perspective, it could easily be said that each and every one of us live our lives "chasing the cheese", so to speak. It is quite nihilistic and useless. When we take a look at what our lives are constituted by and see just how much time we spend pursuing empty pleasures and needs, it really does drive a nail through our appreciation of life.

Incorrect.

I think the issue that Schopenhauer1 is bringing up is not necessarily that life is always a burden, but rather when analyzed from an objective third person perspective, it could easily be said that each and every one of us live our lives "chasing the cheese", so to speak. It is quite nihilistic and useless. When we take a look at what our lives are constituted by and see just how much time we spend pursuing empty pleasures and needs, it really does drive a nail through our appreciation of life. — darthbarracuda

I have a couple of points. Firstly, to state that it is "quite nihilistic and useless" doesn't make much sense to me, except in relation to a particular context, so I would like to know what context you have in mind here. And secondly, isn't whether or not such acts are "empty" a subjective matter, and hence will depend on the subject, and, more specifically, his or her values?

I think that nihilistic reasoning has a tendency to view things from a context which is itself rather meaningless, and puts things out of perspective. For example, the judgement that life is meaningless, given the vastness of the universe, and the expanse of time. This claim was frequently made by newcomers to the philosophy forum of which I used to be a part.

I wonder if you're doing a similar thing, but perhaps not as extreme as in my example.

Firstly, to state that it is "quite nihilistic and useless" doesn't make much sense to me, except in relation to a particular context, so I would like to know what context you have in mind here. — Sapientia

The context would be life. What goal is life itself, the chemical reactions itself, leading towards? There is no goal. Life is without a goal and without a direction; it is therefore unnecessary.

And secondly, isn't whether or not such acts are "empty" a subjective matter, and hence will depend on the subject, and, more specifically, his or her values? — Sapientia

I suppose it depends on how versatile one's mind is and how able they are to compartmentalize aspects of their life so that they can maintain meaning and purpose in a thoroughly nihilistic world.

The context would be life. What goal is life itself, the chemical reactions itself, leading towards? There is no goal. Life is without a goal and without a direction; it is therefore unnecessary. — darthbarracuda

Well, life is what you make of it, as they say. We set our own life goals, and choose our own direction. An objective purpose is not necessary, and life itself does not need to be necessary, in order for us to make use of this opportunity. That we are alive is sufficient.

Your reply seems to confirm what I was saying about taking things out of perspective. Your comparison makes little sense. Why judge the meaning or use of life in comparison to this objective standard? It's like seeking something where you know you won't find it, and yet it's right under your nose.

I suppose it depends on how versatile one's mind is and how able they are to compartmentalize aspects of their life so that they can maintain meaning and purpose in a thoroughly nihilistic world. — darthbarracuda

We seem to be doing just fine without any purpose or meaning in the objective sense. It seems like a rather redundant notion and a fool's errand.

I think the issue that Schopenhauer1 is bringing up is not necessarily that life is always a burden, but rather when analyzed from an objective third person perspective, it could easily be said that each and every one of us live our lives "chasing the cheese", so to speak. It is quite nihilistic and useless. When we take a look at what our lives are constituted by and see just how much time we spend pursuing empty pleasures and needs, it really does drive a nail through our appreciation of life. — darthbarracuda

You shift gears here. Your first sentence is an argument for not living life, arguing that all pursuits are useless, so you should just sit on the front porch swing waiting to die. The second sentence adds the word "empty," which qualifies pleasures and needs, suggesting perhaps that there are some needs/desires that are not empty. Perhaps discovering what is empty and what is not might be the way to go here. What do you think?

I do think it's generally accepted that some pursuits are worthwhile and others not, like spending time with those close to you, developing relationships, helping others, thinking about the meaning of life, and engaging in intellectual pursuits. These would be in contrast to "chasing cheese" for whatever that entails.

Even should you disagree that the pursuits I've itemized are meaningful, I don't see how you can assert that starving yourself, shivering naked in the cold, or denying yourself sex are somehow meaningful. It's not like starving isn't a pursuit in itself, so I'm not entirely clear why starving is a good pursuit but eating is a bad pursuit. The only truly critical difference it seems is that the former is masochistic and the latter not. You'd have to explain to me why a masochistic philosophy is better than one that allows for personal comfort.

If starvation will free me from the binds of needing to eat, perhaps demeaning me and throwing trash on me would free me from the binds of needing kindness. And, if starving yourself provides you meaning in your ass backwards world, maybe we should deny you starvation and force you to eat just to really fuck with you. We can't allow you to become addicted to self-depravation because that would interfere with your free will. Every now and then we need to compliment a masochist just to piss him off.

The Amish actually have a word for someone who seeks too much simplicity as being proudly humble and therefore in violation of the Amish rule against pride. I don't know what the word is. My Pennsylvania Dutch is rusty.

Personally, I find all this talk of telos and natural law to be a bit unscientific and definitely problematic in terms of the is-ought gap. The Catholic Church tries to defend natural law by saying that natural, male-female sex during marriage is the only way to achieve human flourishing - a doctrine that I find blatantly absurd. — darthbarracuda

Thank you for clarifying. This is not quite the same notion of natural law that grounds my position. Deliberate frustration of a being's will I call wrong. This is why I find abortion wrong, since it deliberately frustrates the will of the fetus to live. I think I spoke of harm earlier, but the harm here is metaphysical in nature, so my argument doesn't depend on the fetus feeling pain. In the case of homosexual acts, I would probably regard them as foolish rather than immoral, which is essentially how I view procreation. No harm has occurred, so they cannot be wrong, but in both cases, those engaged in such acts are operating under delusions about the nature of themselves and the world.

Straight marriages produce gay men, so keep up the good work! — Bitter Crank

Hehe. This reminds me St. Jerome, who reputedly said, "I praise marriage because it produces more virgins." This might be the only argument in favor of marriage I could assent to.

Priests don't assent to anti-natalism, but very specifically believe in being fruitful and multiplying — Hanover

There are two points you miss here: 1) based on my distinction, they practically assent to anti-natalism (or anatalism, as I would have it), if not theoretically.

2) Many Church Fathers and Christian theologians have not interpreted the command to "be fruitful and multiply" as relating to procreation. Some see it as urging the reader to multiply one's virtues. Others see it as referring to multiplying one's spiritual children, that is, as a call for evangelization. Finally, consider that man fell before this commandment could be realized, so that God’s ideal family was never realized. Biological children are only born after the fall, perhaps as a punishment for man's sin.

Do you guys really think that celibacy is the cure to your various physical and emotional challenges or is that just a comforting thing to tell yourself because you aren't getting laid? — Hanover

This ad hominem is something I would expect a fraternity boy to utter, not someone on a philosophy forum.

I'm not sure how exactly you became so thoroughly confused about my position, but I think Soylent has admirably explained it to you, and I thank him for it.

celibacy, if you are celibate, chances are you will have pent-up sexual urges and desires which will only remind you of the very thing you are trying to evade. — darthbarracuda

No, for once again, these desires are not pent up but rather redirected towards other things or dissipated to such an extent that they no longer trouble one.

What do you do when you realise you're desiring not to desire? — WhiskeyWhiskers

Excellent comment. I've long thought about just this very thing. Here too, though, I would answer this question by distinguishing between a notional or theoretical desire and desire as a lived, felt experience. So I desire (i.e. have the thought) not to desire (i.e. crave or become attached to impermanent things as if they were permanent).

No, for once again, these desires are not pent up but rather redirected towards other things or dissipated to such an extent that they no longer trouble one. — Thorongil

This is what Freud said -- everybody ignored my deeply penetrating insight in mentioning Freud, which makes me just that much more of a bitter crank. Anyway, yes, libidinous desires can be redirected and dissipated, or sublimated.

Indeed, sublimation can be described as the bedrock of civilization. Libidinous energies, which are initially scarcely harnessed drives and desires for fulfillments, can be channeled into all sorts of productive activity besides procreation. Sublimation doesn't generally entail celibacy, (it could) but rather the displacement of sexual activity as the most satisfying enterprise we engage in.

The activities which displace sex are in a phrase, civilization building.