Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

The Validity Of Subjectivism

Rate this topic


JASKN

Recommended Posts

Jaskn,

The point of this forum is to discuss and educate about Objectivism, not so people can educate us all about how there's something wrong with Objectivism. It has been explained to you what is wrong with your position. And you are probably right in assuming that no one has any interest in carrying the conversation further. But, if you do wish to still discuss the issue, why don't you quote some of the responses and give actual pointed responses, you know... "counter arguments"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 59
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

The problem with the typical addict example is that it always posed by people who do not do drugs and simply assume that the addict must be happy about what he is doing, just because he does so. The idea is: if someone does something, I assume that he is happy doing so. Unfortunately that's not true. People are always doing things that they immediately regret, or regret the next day, or the next year. Politically, I would not question the addict's decision -- he can shoot drugs as long as it does not threaten me. However, that does not mean it is practical for him to do so.

The bottom line is that there could be rational reasons to take a drug and there could be irrational reasons.

Have you met a real addict who's happy with his addiction? or is this just a theoretical idea?

JASKN, I think you should reply to this post by software_nerd. You are correct that if someone is happy, then there is no meaningful standpoint from which to condemn him. But what leads you to believe people living the sort of lifestyles you mention are normally happy? A drug user who enjoys taking coke or mdma when he goes out clubbing may lead a happy life, but this is neither an example of addiction nor hedonism. You cant generalise from this to the claim that (eg) most heroin addicts are content with their lives without a _lot_ more evidence/arguments. Similarly, someone who enjoys having sex with attractive women may lead an enjoyable life, but you cant generalise from this to the claim that most playboys who only live for sex are also likely to be happy.

There is no valid inference from "x is enjoyable as part of an otherwise fufilling life" to "x will make someone happy if they pursue it as a primary goal".

Edited by Hal
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hal: Ok.

The problem with the typical addict example is that it always posed by people who do not do drugs and simply assume that the addict must be happy about what he is doing, just because he does so. The idea is: if someone does something, I assume that he is happy doing so. Unfortunately that's not true. People are always doing things that they immediately regret, or regret the next day, or the next year. Politically, I would not question the addict's decision -- he can shoot drugs as long as it does not threaten me. However, that does not mean it is practical for him to do so.

The bottom line is that there could be rational reasons to take a drug and there could be irrational reasons.

Have you met a real addict who's happy with his addiction? or is this just a theoretical idea?

My argument already assumes that the person is happy. I am not arguing whether all drug addicts are always happy or not. I used a drug addict as an example specifically because he is not usually happy, indeed is usually only happy while using the drug.

You are correct that if someone is happy, then there is no meaningful standpoint from which to condemn him.
Then you would be going against Objectivism as well, since Ayn Rand declared that only rational happiness is not condemnable.

A drug user who enjoys taking coke or mdma when he goes out clubbing may lead a happy life, but this is neither an example of addiction nor hedonism.
Actually, that is exactly an example of hedonism.

There is no valid inference from "x is enjoyable as part of an otherwise fufilling life" to "x will make someone happy if they pursue it as a primary goal".
What would you describe a "fulfilling life" to consist of? Misery?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Firstly If you're not willing to listen to "Objectivist Jargon" to use your words, I highly suggest you leave, or at least limit your activity to the debate forum.

why is it so favorable to live as long as possible?

"To live" is the fundamental choice. It is in your nature, as a volitional animal to make this choice before any other. It is a simple choice to make, existence or non-existence, something or a zero, life or death.

By choosing to use your mind, you have already implied an answer to that question. You have chosen "Life." However one has the ability to choose a course of action contrary to that end and pursue one's own destruction. This is against your nature as a human being. The human body is a living thing and to pursue a course of action against the reality of life is to deny it.

"To Live" is not automatic, it still must be an end that must be be valued. As such, any given person may hold values that contradict life, or leads someones to destruction. It is also possible that these values, whatever they may be, may make them 'happy'. However, it is unavoidable that to value 'death,' as you do when using it as 'justification' is a blatant stand against reality.

If you deny reality I can naught but ignore you.

To ask a question such as above is to say that you, in fact, do not value your life, and to any person in such a miserable state I say, "End it."

When you understand why "life" is the standard as opposed to the "inevitability of death" you will understand the first step in integrating rational ethics.

By the way, I used the word 'integrating' as in reference to concept formation, not in reference to adding something to my life, as you said. You said you've read Ayn Rand's 'volumes' but if you had, and rationally integrated everything you, for one, would not have this quandary nor would you think that a few paragraphs on the internet have endowed you with functional understanding of an entire philosophy. I find that insulting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jaskn, you seem to be confusing "happiness" with "euphoria". Happiness is a "state of being" not a momentary feelinf of goodness. It is possible to be happy, and feel sadness, because happiness is an overall state of being.
Merrium-Webster Online Dictionary's definition of happiness:
2 a : a state of well-being and contentment : JOY b : a pleasurable or satisfying experience
Merrium-Webster Online Dictionary's definition of euphoria:
: a feeling of well-being or elation

A "state" is a "feeling" in this context. I am equating all positive emotions.

Firstly If you're not willing to listen to "Objectivist Jargon" to use your words, I highly suggest you leave, or at least limit your activity to the debate forum.
I call it Objectivist jargon because the words sound like Objectivism but the application doesn't make sense. I also stated my general ignorance of how this forum operates. If this thread needs to be moved somewhere else, so be it. If you mean that I need to stop challenging Objectivism and just accept it as being right, I am saying, "No." If you are saying this forum does not tolerate views opposed to Objectivism, I say remove this thread and I will willingly not return.

However one has the ability to choose a course of action contrary to that end and pursue one's own destruction[...] any given person may hold values that contradict life, or leads someones to destruction.
Every man is "pursuing his own destruction" whether he likes it or not, because he will die. That is why I brought up the element of time. Clearly I can kill myself this very moment or kill myself in a more extended fashion before I would die naturally, or die naturally, but it is still death. I say, "Why strive for the longest possible life?" because I could die at any second. Clearly the value lies in striving to prolong your life. Well, I argue that there is nothing inherently good about living as long as possible. There are enjoyable things in life which shorten a predicted life span. Ayn Rand herself was an avid smoker. I would argue that seeing a movie "shortens" your life by serving no other purpose than the momentary joy you experience while viewing it.

By the way, I used the word 'integrating' as in reference to concept formation, not in reference to adding something to my life, as you said.
It is the same thing, to a lesser degree.

However, it is unavoidable that to value 'death,' as you do when using it as 'justification' is a blatant stand against reality.

If you deny reality I can naught but ignore you.

To ask a question such as above is to say that you, in fact, do not value your life, and to any person in such a miserable state I say, "End it."

Again, I resent these pretentious remarks. You are jumping to false conclusions. I have made it clear that I am honestly trying to understand the contradictions I have presented in these posts, which flies in the face of the notion that I hold no value in my life. I will go further to say that my willingness to sit through your misunderstandings, spending my time trying to explain what I mean to you, so that someone else may understand what I am saying and possibly provide some insight is a clear indicator of where I hold the value of my life. Since I am "insulting" to you, and since you are clearly not helping me, again I will say, "Just do not respond."

And again: if there is anyone who actually understands what I am saying, knows a solution and can articulate it, I would really appreciate the feedback.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I also stated my general ignorance of how this forum operates. If this thread needs to be moved somewhere else, so be it. If you mean that I need to stop challenging Objectivism and just accept it as being right, I am saying, "No." If you are saying this forum does not tolerate views opposed to Objectivism, I say remove this thread and I will willingly not return.

Your ignorance of how this forum operates and in what manner opposing views will be tolerated can be remedied very easily by clicking the "Forum Rules" link under the heading at the top of every page and reading the material therein.

And again: if there is anyone who actually understands what I am saying, knows a solution and can articulate it, I would really appreciate the feedback.

It is your responsibility to articulate your points clearly enough so that they are easily understandable to everyone, rather than relying on someone who (somehow) understands it better than the others to do it for you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A "state" is a "feeling" in this context. I am equating all positive emotions.

There's one of your mistakes.

"Happiness" is an ongoing state of well-being. It requires the fulfillment of goals, the realization of one's life and values.

"Euphoria" is fleeting, momentary. It is not a good indicator of morality because a man's life must be taken as a whole, not just on his emotional state from second to second.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you are saying this forum does not tolerate views opposed to Objectivism, I say remove this thread and I will willingly not return.
From the rules: "Therefore participants must not use the website to spread ideas contrary to or unrelated to Objectivism".
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's one of your mistakes.

"Happiness" is an ongoing state of well-being. It requires the fulfillment of goals, the realization of one's life and values.

"Euphoria" is fleeting, momentary. It is not a good indicator of morality because a man's life must be taken as a whole, not just on his emotional state from second to second.

I provided definitions supporting why I equate all positive emotions. Besides, all "momentary" happiness adds up to is life happiness as a "whole." It is not one of my mistakes. However, if you know another, I would like to know it.

dondigitalia: Let me state it clearly: I am articulating to the best of my ability what I mean to say. Since I am the one asking for help, it is up to anyone who wishes to help me to articulate what he means in such a way as to allow me to understand. If you do not understand what I am trying to say, do not respond.

DavidOdden: You're exactly like one of those religious zealots who take excerpts of the Bible out of context in order to promote any idea.

This website facilitates trade among Objectivists and students of Objectivism. The primary -- but not only -- form of trade will be information about Objectivism and discussion about its applications.
I could only guess your motive for posting in this thread.

The bold was mine.

Edited by JASKN
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you both represent Objectivist generally? Is this group of people really so pointlessly insolent? Why do you even bother responding? I provided the definitions to illustrate that they have virtually the same definition. When dealing with emotions, a "state" and a "feeling" are the same.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I argue that there is nothing inherently good about living as long as possible.
You're right in a sense, "Good" requires a standard by which to judge it, namely the values of the valuer.

So, answer this: Do you value life?

Every man is "pursuing his own destruction" whether he likes it or not, because he will die.

How do you explain the metaphysical fact that I am pursuing the furtherance of my own life?

Again, death is a significant as the fact that the sky is blue or that the earth goes around the sun. You cannot base a system of choices and values on something that is unavoidable. It is simply because life isn't automatic that one must base a set of choices (ethics) on it that seeks to keep this primary value "Life."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought I told you not to respond if you didn't understand???

But if you must.....

The point is, we are not dealing with emotions. Emotions are not primaries, there don't come out of nowhere, they are a result of an individuals value judgements. Now if these value judgements are based on a rational assessment of his nature, then the achievment of these values will bring him happiness. Not an emotion or "feeling" of well-being, but an actual "state" of well-being, "contentment" if you will.

If on the other hand, his values are turned against his nature, then he can never achieve happiness (the ongoing "state" of well-being/contentment) the achievement of his values will only bring him his self destruction. He may "feel" good at times, for short periods of time, but it will not last, it can not last, because it is not in accordance with his nature as a self sustaining rational being.

I could go on, but I suspect you don't even grasp this much, and its not worth my effort.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I provided the definitions to illustrate that they have virtually the same definition. When dealing with emotions, a "state" and a "feeling" are the same.

What you provided were dictionary entries. Modern dictionaries (influenced by nominalism), despite their claims to the contrary, do not record definitions of concepts, but descriptions common usages of words. Occasionally, you'll get a good one, but 9 times out of 10 they are either circular or non-fundamental.

Objectivism has a great deal to say on the subject of definitions. They are one of the most crucial aspects of Objectivist epistemology. Because definitions, in Objectivism, are such an immense subject, I won't go into why those defintions are bad or explain how to arrive at a good one. Instead, I'll just give you a full definition of the concept that is used in Objectivism:

Happiness is the long-term state of non-contradictory joy that comes from the achievement of values.

Edited by dondigitalia
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're exactly like one of those religious zealots who take excerpts of the Bible out of context in order to promote any idea.
Perhaps I can clarify the purpose of this forum to you, by saying what it is not. It is not a launching pad for anti-Objectivist propaganda. There are relatively few requirements here, but one of them is that you are not to actively and persistently espouse philosophies that are contrary to Objectivism, and your promotion of hedonism over the Objectivist ethics is exactly that. There is, however, one place on this forum where you could argue for your anti-Objectivist views, namely in the Debate Forums. So I would suggest that you formulate a debatable claim and propose a debate over hedonism vs. the Objectivist ethics. Of course you should read some of the debates (I suggest the first debate on anarchy) to see how the debate is carried out.

Alternatively, if you want to simply post anti-Objectivist declarations, you could go to The Atlas Society forums or the We The Living forums (especially the one they call "Hell's Kitchen"): they don't care what you say there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

JASKN,

I notice you are angry about the way people are responding to you. I'll give you a metaphor:

Suppose someone comes to your Math forum, where people discuss advanced calculus and such, and posts a thread about "the invalidity of basic algebra". That is basically what is happening here. I recommend you take the time to cool off, organize your thoughts and succintly state the essence of your issue with objectivity.

Many (perhaps most) people here actually *know* what they are talking about, like you *know* that 2+2=4.

Personally I suspect your main difficulty is with the fact that to live is the essential choice. Even in your drug addict examples - why does the druggie not simply commit suicide? Because he wants another "high"? Well, guess what - you need to be alive to have a "high". The druggie actually wants to live - he just doesn't know how.

mrocktor

Link to comment
Share on other sites

dondigitalia: Let me state it clearly: I am articulating to the best of my ability what I mean to say. Since I am the one asking for help, it is up to anyone who wishes to help me to articulate what he means in such a way as to allow me to understand. If you do not understand what I am trying to say, do not respond.

Since you made the ad hominem claim of insolence in your post proceding this one, I would suggest you look up the meaning of insolence. Because your double standard demand above is surely a case of insolence!

I understand, btw, your argument completely. I do not buy, however, that your reading of Objectivism is as wide as you claim. Productivity is one of the cardinal virtues of Objectivism. How can you be asking for a definition of it? It is covered extensively throughout the Objectivist corpus.

And your claim that there is no difference between the producer and the heroin addict is to overlook or evade so much data as to be quite outside any considerations of philosophy.

If you really want to indulge your whims (and feel that your exposure to Objectivism is holding back the elation of doing so) feel free to do so. You can't validate subjectivity and emotional whim-worship. You must just say: "my desires: right or wrong". Denying that there is any such thing as right and wrong will help you a long way to this goal. Also, when the consequenses of your philosophy start to come to light, there is a sure fire way to keep yourself insulated from the knowledge that you are the agent of those consequeses. Learn to evade and deny the law of causality.

I do not know whether you take drugs or not. But, I would suggest doing so as numbing your mind will make it a lot easier to be guided by your feelings; it will also keep you away from facts. I have now set you free.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At the risk of simply rehashing what has already been said, I thought I would add a few observations. As far as the reasoin for prolonging life is concerned, doesn't it come down to a cost/benefit analysis regarding the state of that life? Meaning, the only way one can experience happiness is to be alive. Therefore, other factors nothwithstanding, the longer life has the greatest potential for happiness. Now, it's true, that a long, unsatisfying life is not as good as a short one filled with joy and achievement, so length cannot be the only standard. But do you see how, assuming one is living life in a way that generates happiness, it would make sense to prolong that happiness by prolonging life? The example of the heroin addict simply demonstrates a case where a particular kind of happiness is only achievable through the destruction of life on the physical level, to a certian degree. It's no different than someone who enjoys eating so much that they become unhealthily overweight. The benefit accquired must be weighed against the necessary cost. This is where reason and logic come in. If a heroin addict were able to honestly examine his life and conclude that he could reasonably expect to generate the most satisfaction on a lifelong scale from a year of getting high, knowing that he would die as a result, then I think it would be a logical choice. So it is not a contradiction or a refutation of Objectivist ideology, because the conclusion comes from rational observation and integration. I think, however, that the other members are right to assume that such a person would be very hard to find- you might as easily find someone who would rationally conclude that pulling off their fingernails one at a time was their only path the happiness. The problem is that people often use this idea and forget about the rational evaluation part- they are to lazy to genuinely examine their own desires, and are content to slip into a state that does not truly bring them happiness, but which they defend nevertheless because to do toherwise often requires difficult effort.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
Have you met a real addict who's happy with his addiction? or is this just a theoretical idea?

That's not the right method. Perhaps you're right that some drug-addicts are happy people; but, don't assume it. Instead of starting from an assumption, start from reality, as follows: think of various real examples of people you know who have the following two characteristics:

  • They are definitely not Objectivists
  • They are happy and enjoying their lives (perhaps not "perfectly happy", but people you'd classify as living generally happy lives). Keep things simple by excluding those who belive happiness is in self-abnegation.

The first should be easy; the second, less so. You will need to understand what you mean by happiness. Is happiness something objective? or can you assume that that a person who says they are happy, truly is happy in the sense you mean it?

Once you have a few examples of people who are generally happy, try to think what aspects of their lives makes them happy. At this point, add in a few people who you'd classify as generally sad (this time you might even include people who say they agree with Objectivism). Ask yourself what makes them sad.

If you find that the happy folk are not living productive lives, with their own values as their prime motivator, then let's start with one of those examples and understand why the principle does not appear to work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If happiness is of value to one's self, however one defines happiness, then there is something incontrovertibly true here. That is, life qua life is a prerequisite of that happiness--whatever it may be. Where there is no life, there is no happiness. Therefore, if one values happiness, then one must, at a minimum, pursue values that sustain & preserve one's life.

Edited by Nxixcxk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

DavidOdden: I am not interested in engaging in Objectivist polemics. You do not take me seriously becuase I do not argue solely within the dogmatic realm of Objectivism. I am well aware of the Objectivist position on everything that I have posted, and I implied, and believe, that Objectivism has not been able to answer my inquiries.

(Emphasis added by myself)

As a non-objectivist member of this forum and as a practicing Catholic I have to take issue with this statement. The application of the term "dogmatic" does not apply to Objectivism because of the nature of it's axioms, the most important one being taking your senses percieve as the basis of reality. Here is the definition of Dogmatic.

1. Relating to, characteristic of, or resulting from dogma.

2. Characterized by an authoritative, arrogant assertion of unproved or unprovable principles.

Objectivism takes as an axiom the validity of our senses, so if you assert the 2nd definition, you are basically saying that anything we see or hear is not provable, which is absurd. Furthermore, if you are asserting the 1st definition, I can link you to a series of polemics that Rand, Peikoff, and several others have launched against the Catholic Church or several other religions, all of them based on contrary principles.

Religious Dogma is arrived at for a number of various causes, most of them based upon denying reason for some non-rational means. However, when it comes to actually proving the existence of a personal God, such a being is defined as being the source of nature, which would suggest something either greater in size than the physical universe (which we can not fully percieve by our senses), or existing in a form divorced from physical perception.

Objectivism does not deal with the existence of things that are not provable because it ventures outside the rational realm, hense what you get is a rather pleasant indifference to the subject of God existing or not, rather than the militant form of Atheism that I observe from most Kantian students, which is why I like it here. Objectivists are not automatically hostile to religion, but they are heavily critical of it at it's fundamental level, so comparing Objectivism to it is completely absurd and can only function as a personal attack, which is always counter-productive.

One of the bones of contention amongst various students of Thomism, myself included, is the problem of ontologically arguing proofs. In essence, though Aquinas did not fully come to this conclusion at the time, it all stems from the problem of a priori knowledge being a standard of validating things. A few mavericks such as myself think that a priori knowledge doesn't actually exist, and that all mathematical constructs are based upon experience, and this view is held more strongly by Objectivists.

If you take the arguement that Objectivism is wrong because it stands upon the basis that reality pertains to sensory perception (the only known basis for rational thought), then you are basically either stating that you think that some non-sensory means leads to a clearer reason (the Kantian principle) or the contrarian arguement that "I don't like it because philosopher A said so and I don't like him/her because of how he/she said it", which is the childish response I get from Libertarians.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

rather than the militant form of Atheism that I observe from most Kantian students, which is why I like it here.

I'm interested in this statement, because I haven't spent much time talking to students of Kant, but I've spent considerable time reading him myself. Kant is the man who "suspended reason to make room for faith." So why are his students militant Atheists?

JASKN-- I've found an understanding of the following terms to be helpful in grasping ethics in general and Objectivism specifically.

hedone- This is the Greek term for pleasure. It is a momentary, sensual experience, like your example of the recreational use of a drug. That could be, for someone, a pleasant experience-- that's hedone.

Hedonism- This is an ethical theory. There are two closely related but not identical versions of this theory. Psychological Hedonism holds that man's primary motive for action is necessarily a desire to maximize pleasure (or to minimize pain). In this theory, whether you know it or not, hedone is what you're really after. Ethical Hedonism holds that the proper standard for morality is pleasure. Usually when people talk about "Hedonism" they mean Ethical Hedonism, because Psychological Hedonism is deterministic, so it's really outside the province of morality or nominal codes of behavior. For an Ethical Hedonism, that which maximizes pleasure (or minimizes pain) is the good, and that which maximizes suffering or diminishes pleasure is the evil. Clearly there is no grounds for saying that happy, well adjusted people who occasionally use MDMA when they go dancing are necessarily Hedonists. An argument could be made that a consistent Hedonist could never become happy and well adjusted. But that's a whole separate issue.

eudaimonia- This is the Greek word for happiness. It is more starkly contrasted with hedone than the English word happiness is with pleasure. It has also been translated as "flourishing" or "the good life." It is a longstanding, consistent, efficacious type of existence. Aristotle's "Magnanimous Man," or the successful industrialist who, in his old age, looks back at all his accomplishments and smiles with satisfaction and fulfillment are examples of eudaimonia.

Eudaimonism- An ethical theory, with Psychological as well as Ethical adherents, like Hedonism. Psychological Eudaimonists think everyone is motivated primarily by the desire for happiness. In this view, for example, even Francis of Assisi or a Moslem suicide bomber are motivated primarily by a (disguised) desire for personal happiness (e.g., happiness in the afterlife, etc). Ethical Eudaimonists hold happiness as the standard for morality. An Ethical Eudaimonist thinks a person should be motivated primarily by the desire for happiness. Objectivism is similar to Eudaimonism in the sense that is holds happiness is the proper goal of ethics, but it differs in that it holds life as the standard. In Eudaimonism, the good is that which promotes happiness, the evil is that which negates it. In Objectivism, the good is that which makes life possible (for the purpose of obtaining happiness) and the evil is that which is inimical to life (thus making happiness impossible.) It might seem a subtle distinction, but it becomes crucially important in defending Objectivism against certain codes of morality, including Kantianism, and... Ethical Subjectivism. For validation of this theory in Objectivism, I refer you to the Objectivist literature-- especially The Virtue of Selfishness.

Since the Greeks were the first thinkers in Western Philosophy to originate codes of morality, these terms have remained extremely significant. It can be a little misleading, if you're used to the way the terms "pleasure" and "happiness" are used in popular English usage (and therefore as they are represented in modern populist dictionaries), because many philosophers including most Objectivist use the terms as if they were actually saying "hedone" and "eudaimonia."

I hope that helps to clarify some things.

Edited by Bold Standard
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm interested in this statement, because I haven't spent much time talking to students of Kant, but I've spent considerable time reading him myself. Kant is the man who "suspended reason to make room for faith." So why are his students militant Atheists?

I have not made a special study of the subject, but the problem does interest me too. I have a few observations to offer, for further consideration:

1. I do not read German, but German-reading friends, and my own glance at a German-English dictionary, tell me that Glaube (Kant's word for which "faith" is the usual translation, at least in Critique of Pure Reason) can indeed mean "faith" (in the religious, epistemological sense) -- but it can also mean and be translated as "belief" (with the connotation of having any emotionally-based or other arbitrary, subjective source).

2. Even in Kant's own lifetime, his supporters included both religious fideists and anti-religious philosophizers. That has continued to be true, apparently, long after he died. This is what I remember from two sources in particular: Manfred Kuehn, Kant: A Biography; and Frederick C. Beiser, The Fate of Reason: German Philosophy from Kant to Fichte.

Kant himself apparently left very mixed messages about religion. One biographical source, Kuehn I think, indicated that Kant generally refused to attend Church services while he was a university professor in Koenigsberg; yet he wrote of God and his own wonder at the depth of the starry skies above.

Accordingly, Kant's legacy has split, apparently, just as the legacy of Pythagoras split. Some scientific types apparently harkened back to Pythagoras' emphasis on a mathematical interpretation of the world -- and dumped his mysticism. Mystical types interpreted the number business in Pythagoras' "philosophy" as numerology. (I am relying here only on secondary sources. I have not made an independent study of the subject.)

I don't have the time at the moment to dig up particular references, so I am offering these sources only as possible leads, not as proof. If other sources on this problem are better, please mention them.

P. S. -- David, thank you for laying out the various Greek ideas on pleasure and happiness. The Greeks were, as you know, the fountainhead of Western Civilization. In a sense, they are still part of the great debates of our time.

Edited by BurgessLau
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...