Ideal life would be along the megalomaniacal designs seen here, becoming immortal, being a god, all that.
Why? I certainly do not want to be inmortal. I want a nice, long life, but I certainly don't think immortality would be pleasing in the end. And as for being a God: well, that isn' t even a "life".
Ideal life would be along the megalomaniacal designs seen here, becoming immortal, being a god, all that.
Why? I certainly do not want to be inmortal. I want a nice, long life, but I certainly don't think immortality would be pleasing in the end. And as for being a God: well, that isn' t even a "life".
Point taken. My ideal is hardly realistic. That's why my answer for good life was money, love and power to affect the world around yourself. Kinda lacking in all three, so that's what I'm striving for.
As for immortality being pleasing, well, mortal life sure as hell hasn't been pleasing so far.
The good life is the financial freedom to do what I want. It's not about being rich. A trust fund that provided me with enough interest every year to live relatively comfortably (but there'd be no buying flying yachts) would do just fine.
I have a good job but this whole "working for a living" thing has never meshed well with me. I want the freedom to travel around and visit my family and friends whenever I wish. I want the TIME to be able to do those things. If I want to attempt to open up a business, I want to do so with the knowledge that, if it fails, I won't be living in a box.
Well, I suppose to tell what living the good life is, I'd have to take into account myself and my externalities.
As far as externals are concerned, having a rewarding job, not having to worry too much about financial issues, a good relationship, the ability to do some good in the world.
For myself as a person, honestly the idea of a polymath has always been a favored romanticism of mine. If I were something like that down the line, with the externals mentioned above covered, I would consider that a splendid life.
If we're talking about the supernatural, yeah. Immortality. I don't think I'd mind that.
The good life is whatever you consider the good life to be.
I do not believe this.
Then explain the bountiful differences in replies.
Finding an objective good is nigh-impossible. So, best, too, will be subjective.
I think Aristotle is a good guide to the good life. A good life is a happy life. Now, if you consider a good life to be on an island with a personal medical team taking all sorts of different drugs, I would say that that is not a happy life. Happiness has certain qualities to it, the classical definitions of which you are aware: independence, persistence, and consisting of both the contentness and ecstasy, which I had previously mentioned.
MrMisterJesus dying on the cross in pain? Morally better than us. One has to go "all in".Registered Userregular
edited November 2007
You haven't specified whether the best life is to be taken as the most enjoyable or the most morally upstanding. If it's the former, then I'd go with money, men, and so on. If it's the latter, then it's charity and good works.
MrMister on
0
Options
Podlyyou unzipped me! it's all coming back! i don't like it!Registered Userregular
You haven't specified whether the best life is to be taken as the most enjoyable or the most morally upstanding. If it's the former, then I'd go with money, men, and so on. If it's the latter, then it's charity and good works.
I think that the best life is a LOT harder to define than a good life. I'm quite certain that I can demarcate a good life. I wouldn't know where to begin to describe the best life. Some mix of Kantian duty with Aristotelian Balance.
You haven't specified whether the best life is to be taken as the most enjoyable or the most morally upstanding. If it's the former, then I'd go with money, men, and so on. If it's the latter, then it's charity and good works.
I think that the best life is a LOT harder to define than a good life. I'm quite certain that I can demarcate a good life. I wouldn't know where to begin to describe the best life. Some mix of Kantian duty with Aristotelian Balance.
Both are vague concepts that depend entirely on the individual.
MKR on
0
Options
Podlyyou unzipped me! it's all coming back! i don't like it!Registered Userregular
You haven't specified whether the best life is to be taken as the most enjoyable or the most morally upstanding. If it's the former, then I'd go with money, men, and so on. If it's the latter, then it's charity and good works.
I think that the best life is a LOT harder to define than a good life. I'm quite certain that I can demarcate a good life. I wouldn't know where to begin to describe the best life. Some mix of Kantian duty with Aristotelian Balance.
Both are vague concepts that depend entirely on the individual.
No. For the reasons I listed before and because people are too stupid to know when they're unhappy.
You haven't specified whether the best life is to be taken as the most enjoyable or the most morally upstanding. If it's the former, then I'd go with money, men, and so on. If it's the latter, then it's charity and good works.
This has never really struck me as much of a dilemma, since we have any number of concrete examples of people who actually do have access to, for all intents and purposes, limitless amounts of largely consequence-free sex + drugs + money but, even taking into account our natural Puritan tendency to want to see the popular and successful laid low, they often really don't seem that happy. With no boundaries to push against, they can't recapture the satisfaction of the achievements that got them to that level in the first place.
You haven't specified whether the best life is to be taken as the most enjoyable or the most morally upstanding. If it's the former, then I'd go with money, men, and so on. If it's the latter, then it's charity and good works.
I think that the best life is a LOT harder to define than a good life. I'm quite certain that I can demarcate a good life. I wouldn't know where to begin to describe the best life. Some mix of Kantian duty with Aristotelian Balance.
Both are vague concepts that depend entirely on the individual.
No. For the reasons I listed before and because people are too stupid to know when they're unhappy.
Then you need to define "good life."
MKR on
0
Options
Podlyyou unzipped me! it's all coming back! i don't like it!Registered Userregular
You haven't specified whether the best life is to be taken as the most enjoyable or the most morally upstanding. If it's the former, then I'd go with money, men, and so on. If it's the latter, then it's charity and good works.
I think that the best life is a LOT harder to define than a good life. I'm quite certain that I can demarcate a good life. I wouldn't know where to begin to describe the best life. Some mix of Kantian duty with Aristotelian Balance.
Both are vague concepts that depend entirely on the individual.
No. For the reasons I listed before and because people are too stupid to know when they're unhappy.
I think Aristotle is a good guide to the good life. A good life is a happy life. Now, if you consider a good life to be on an island with a personal medical team taking all sorts of different drugs, I would say that that is not a happy life. Happiness has certain qualities to it, the classical definitions of which you are aware: independence, persistence, and consisting of both the contentness and ecstasy, which I had previously mentioned.
You haven't specified whether the best life is to be taken as the most enjoyable or the most morally upstanding. If it's the former, then I'd go with money, men, and so on. If it's the latter, then it's charity and good works.
I think that the best life is a LOT harder to define than a good life. I'm quite certain that I can demarcate a good life. I wouldn't know where to begin to describe the best life. Some mix of Kantian duty with Aristotelian Balance.
Both are vague concepts that depend entirely on the individual.
No. For the reasons I listed before and because people are too stupid to know when they're unhappy.
I think Aristotle is a good guide to the good life. A good life is a happy life. Now, if you consider a good life to be on an island with a personal medical team taking all sorts of different drugs, I would say that that is not a happy life. Happiness has certain qualities to it, the classical definitions of which you are aware: independence, persistence, and consisting of both the contentness and ecstasy, which I had previously mentioned.
That's not a definition at all. At best it's an example and an explanation of why you consider living drugged up on an island to be a bad life.
Edit: I guess what I'm saying is that you're doing a terrible job of explaining the rules of happiness.
The good life is whatever you consider the good life to be.
I do not believe this.
Then explain the bountiful differences in replies.
Finding an objective good is nigh-impossible. So, best, too, will be subjective.
I think Aristotle is a good guide to the good life. A good life is a happy life. Now, if you consider a good life to be on an island with a personal medical team taking all sorts of different drugs, I wouldm say that that is not a happy life. Happiness has certain qualities to it, the classical definitions of which you are aware: independence, persistence, and consisting of both the contentness and ecstasy, which I had previously mentioned.
I do not think Aristotle is correct insofar as he would tell a happy person they are not happy. While people can be mistaken about their own assessment of their state in life I do think that there is not one "best" for all people. After all, not everyone would want to be a philosopher and nigh-all philosophers would say that doing philosophy is the best life.
Edit: You say "...independence, persistence, and consisting of both the contentness and ecstasy..." constitute a happy life. Why are any of these prerequisites for happiness?
I suppose it's possible I'm just missing what you're saying. Your posts read like a bad pop psychology book, and are hard to follow.
When I started the thread I meant "the good life" in the way I think that term is generally defined in philosophy - as the best kind of life to live.
But that's the problem. By whose standard? And whose philosophy?
Reason's standards.
Whose reason? That of a collectivist society? Individualist? Consumerist? Fundamentally religious (and which religion?)?
For all intents and purposes, those people (esp the religious and consumerist) are not acting completely logically.
A good life is a happy life. "The good life" would therefore be the happiest life. Now multiple things can make you happy. But what will make you the most happy?
Here is where my religious inclinations come in - love. Pure, unadulterated love will make you the most happy. Between God, between your partner, between your children.
When I started the thread I meant "the good life" in the way I think that term is generally defined in philosophy - as the best kind of life to live.
But that's the problem. By whose standard? And whose philosophy?
Reason's standards.
Whose reason? That of a collectivist society? Individualist? Consumerist? Fundamentally religious (and which religion?)?
For all intents and purposes, those people (esp the religious and consumerist) are not acting completely logically.
A good life is a happy life. "The good life" would therefore be the happiest life. Now multiple things can make you happy. But what will make you the most happy?
Here is where my religious inclinations come in - love. Pure, unadulterated love will make you the most happy. Between God, between your partner, between your children.
What does happiness have to do with logic? :P
Rather than go back and forth between you saying "this is happiness" and me saying "to you", it might be more productive to discuss how different cultures see happiness.
When I started the thread I meant "the good life" in the way I think that term is generally defined in philosophy - as the best kind of life to live.
Well, ancient ethicists and modern ethicists have taken dramatically different approaches to this question. The way you're phrasing things seems to be in a more ancient framework--talking about the best life to lead, not necessarily the components of a morally correct course of action. Of course, I don't particularly agree with the ancient approach. I think that there are two distinct questions: what is the best life for me, and what is the morally upstanding life.
Giving money to charity lowers my quality of life, however, it's an essential component of the morally upstanding life. Furthermore, as of writing this, I decided to put my money where my mouth is, and started a monthly donation to Oxfam. I encourage others to do the same.
Personally I'm more interested in the morally upstanding life. "The best life for me" is just a boring listing of what toys people want.
I'm big on the Kantian notion of Duty on this one. The best morally upstanding life in one in which our will is not dictated by oughts, because the ought is out of place - the would is already aligned with the right thing to do.
Personally I'm more interested in the morally upstanding life. "The best life for me" is just a boring listing of what toys people want.
I agree. The morally upstanding life, as I see it, is one of maximizing utility along a continuous scale. My parents give me $200 in spending money a month. I just signed up to give $40 of it, which I picked because it's round, and because 20% is what Peter Singer gives. Had I picked $50 instead I would be living a more moral life, and had I picked $30 I would be living a less moral one.
Of course, charity is not the sole component of morality (although it is a huge one). There are similar considerations with regards to things like calling home on mother's day, helping friends through tough times, and so on. The more you do, the better, the less you do, the worse. The important thing being, again, that it's a continuous scale, and not an all or nothing affair.
Personally I'm more interested in the morally upstanding life. "The best life for me" is just a boring listing of what toys people want.
I agree. The morally upstanding life, as I see it, is one of maximizing utility along a continuous scale. My parents give me $200 in spending money a month. I just signed up to give $40 of it, which I picked because it's round, and because 20% is what Peter Singer gives. Had I picked $50 instead I would be living a more moral life, and had I picked $30 I would be living a less moral one.
Of course, charity is not the sole component of morality (although it is a huge one). There are similar considerations with regards to things like calling home on mother's day, helping friends through tough times, and so on. The more you do, the better, the less you do, the worse. The important thing being, again, that it's a continuous scale, and not an all or nothing affair.
The good life is pretty easy to get for decently-educated 1st worlders IF they don't give a rat's ass about prestige goods, at least until kids come into the equation.
Prestige goods and kids tend to fuck things up pretty quickly.
Posts
Why? I certainly do not want to be inmortal. I want a nice, long life, but I certainly don't think immortality would be pleasing in the end. And as for being a God: well, that isn' t even a "life".
Point taken. My ideal is hardly realistic. That's why my answer for good life was money, love and power to affect the world around yourself. Kinda lacking in all three, so that's what I'm striving for.
As for immortality being pleasing, well, mortal life sure as hell hasn't been pleasing so far.
These four suggestions pretty much comprise my idea of "the good life".
As far as externals are concerned, having a rewarding job, not having to worry too much about financial issues, a good relationship, the ability to do some good in the world.
For myself as a person, honestly the idea of a polymath has always been a favored romanticism of mine. If I were something like that down the line, with the externals mentioned above covered, I would consider that a splendid life.
If we're talking about the supernatural, yeah. Immortality. I don't think I'd mind that.
On the black screen
Then explain the bountiful differences in replies.
Finding an objective good is nigh-impossible. So, best, too, will be subjective.
I think Aristotle is a good guide to the good life. A good life is a happy life. Now, if you consider a good life to be on an island with a personal medical team taking all sorts of different drugs, I would say that that is not a happy life. Happiness has certain qualities to it, the classical definitions of which you are aware: independence, persistence, and consisting of both the contentness and ecstasy, which I had previously mentioned.
I think that the best life is a LOT harder to define than a good life. I'm quite certain that I can demarcate a good life. I wouldn't know where to begin to describe the best life. Some mix of Kantian duty with Aristotelian Balance.
Both are vague concepts that depend entirely on the individual.
No. For the reasons I listed before and because people are too stupid to know when they're unhappy.
This has never really struck me as much of a dilemma, since we have any number of concrete examples of people who actually do have access to, for all intents and purposes, limitless amounts of largely consequence-free sex + drugs + money but, even taking into account our natural Puritan tendency to want to see the popular and successful laid low, they often really don't seem that happy. With no boundaries to push against, they can't recapture the satisfaction of the achievements that got them to that level in the first place.
Then you need to define "good life."
That's not a definition at all. At best it's an example and an explanation of why you consider living drugged up on an island to be a bad life.
Edit: I guess what I'm saying is that you're doing a terrible job of explaining the rules of happiness.
I do not think Aristotle is correct insofar as he would tell a happy person they are not happy. While people can be mistaken about their own assessment of their state in life I do think that there is not one "best" for all people. After all, not everyone would want to be a philosopher and nigh-all philosophers would say that doing philosophy is the best life.
Edit: You say "...independence, persistence, and consisting of both the contentness and ecstasy..." constitute a happy life. Why are any of these prerequisites for happiness?
I suppose it's possible I'm just missing what you're saying. Your posts read like a bad pop psychology book, and are hard to follow.
But that's the problem. By whose standard? And whose philosophy?
Reason's standards.
Whose reason? That of a collectivist society? Individualist? Consumerist? Fundamentally religious (and which religion?)?
Sounds like a matter for discussion and perhaps debate. Contending opinions and whatnot.
For all intents and purposes, those people (esp the religious and consumerist) are not acting completely logically.
A good life is a happy life. "The good life" would therefore be the happiest life. Now multiple things can make you happy. But what will make you the most happy?
Here is where my religious inclinations come in - love. Pure, unadulterated love will make you the most happy. Between God, between your partner, between your children.
What does happiness have to do with logic? :P
Rather than go back and forth between you saying "this is happiness" and me saying "to you", it might be more productive to discuss how different cultures see happiness.
Oh. Then the best life is the life if a philosopher.
OK Plato
Of course, this means that living it is a matter of choice, a matter of perspective. People are as happy as they decide to be, and all that.
War.
Catholics.
High school bullies.
https://medium.com/@alascii
Well, ancient ethicists and modern ethicists have taken dramatically different approaches to this question. The way you're phrasing things seems to be in a more ancient framework--talking about the best life to lead, not necessarily the components of a morally correct course of action. Of course, I don't particularly agree with the ancient approach. I think that there are two distinct questions: what is the best life for me, and what is the morally upstanding life.
Giving money to charity lowers my quality of life, however, it's an essential component of the morally upstanding life. Furthermore, as of writing this, I decided to put my money where my mouth is, and started a monthly donation to Oxfam. I encourage others to do the same.
I'm big on the Kantian notion of Duty on this one. The best morally upstanding life in one in which our will is not dictated by oughts, because the ought is out of place - the would is already aligned with the right thing to do.
I agree. The morally upstanding life, as I see it, is one of maximizing utility along a continuous scale. My parents give me $200 in spending money a month. I just signed up to give $40 of it, which I picked because it's round, and because 20% is what Peter Singer gives. Had I picked $50 instead I would be living a more moral life, and had I picked $30 I would be living a less moral one.
Of course, charity is not the sole component of morality (although it is a huge one). There are similar considerations with regards to things like calling home on mother's day, helping friends through tough times, and so on. The more you do, the better, the less you do, the worse. The important thing being, again, that it's a continuous scale, and not an all or nothing affair.
It's wanting what you've got
Ewww...Utilitarianism
It's not bullshitty enough for you--I understand. Too workaday for a postmodernist "student of literature and life."
Prestige goods and kids tend to fuck things up pretty quickly.
Also, like, prestige as a non-good.
Fortune isn't so hard, fame's a bitch.
I think his revulsion has more to do with his Catholicism than his hipsterism.