I guess I’ll consume the state mandated amount of treats and feel bad about it in a manner I’m prescribed to feel guilty about. That’s makes me a morally good person. I consume the right amount which is too much but I flagellate myself which its okay.
treats aren't inherently bad, and asceticism isn't inherently bad either. there is definitely something to the ascetic ideas that happiness comes from within and that you can benefit from cutting out superficial comforts which can easily start to feel like the source of happiness. i think it's a good exercise in moderation. when you embrace discomfort sometimes, it helps with your perspective on a lot of stuff. i just dont think you need to make a full lifestyle out of it necessarily
Hard disagree. Happiness comes from within, but this is only possible with sufficiently met needs. Despite what boomers would have you believe, the needs of life are not limited to food, water, and sleep. As human beings, we need artistic expression, social interaction, actual rest (free time to do "inefficient" things), and any number of other things that most people would consider "wants".
Asceticism is bad because it implies many of these things, aside from (sometimes) food, water, and sleep, are optional for human happiness. That you can just "let go" of these things and still be happy. But you can't. You can survive without these things. That's an entirely different experience, though, and not one even remotely resembling contentment. You can survive having your genitals regrow magically and then be cut off over and over again but nobody wants to experience that.
So, hedonism good? Well, not exactly. Hedonism sucks balls, actually, but not the regular old "pleasure seeking" kind of hedonism. It's this linear mindset that more pleasure correlates directly with more happiness, but that doesn't make any sense, that is problematic!
We are not happier when we eat a ton more food than we need, and we are not happier when we got a ton more sleep than we need. If you investigate it more, you'll realize that the first kind of hedonism I mentioned often comes into direct conflict with the latter. This is because hedonism is kind of a shitty term, and one I prefer to use to describe the former mindset. I unironically think hedonism is good, basically, but only a 'mindless' kind. "Capitalism brain" is a way more apt descriptor of the latter.
This kind of hedonism doesn't involve a constant chase of gold or abstract "pleasure" or power, but just listening to what someone's mind and body actually wants in the moment. What's the difference? Well, the latter, problematic kind of hedonism, is characterized by a kind of self-ignorance. Rather than attempting to find out what desires are actually unfulfilled, the capitalists continue to amass wealth and power, thinking that they need more and more so they can pierce the heavens and do... whatever they think they can do to be happy forever. This isn't an actual desire anyone sane has. Sure, having number go up feels nice, but you can do the same thing in Cookie Clicker and avoid the trouble. In this sense, the capitalist urge for more and more power stems from a twisted kind of asceticism, a moral belief that pleasure is secondary to achieving their One True Goal, making number go up, and satisfying it in any other way is Heresy (I'm kind of guilty of this myself- I don't know if I'd actually want a permanent happiness pill or anything like that. But that kind of philosophizing should be secondary to destroying the current system. Actually, I mean, I don't think the human brain would even function with a permanent happiness pill (it's not designed for permanent happiness) and it would be less efficient, because of all the activities people do that build social bonds as a beneficial side effect anyways).
I have a lot of (ancedotal) evidence to back up everything I've said here, but I really do think it's not all that different from what you said, I'm just weird and like to investigate these things too much. Also, I know that this sounds an awful lot like eastern philosophy, and that's kind of on purpose. I might be assumptive and arrogant here, but I feel like what I just said in this comment is pretty similar to what Buddha or Laozi would think of as an optimal life, minus the caveat that I think ascension/removing desires from oneself isn't possible (Fundamental desires, like the need for food or the urge for social interaction- The ways those specifically manifest can come and go very easily).
Also, the degree that people actually need to fulfill these needs can drastically differ from person to person, and the character of them can, too. This isn't some sort of screed to justify weird "but i NEED to have sex" sex-pestism, either. You can fulfill the same needs sex do by jacking off and then going to a book club. Also sex isn't really a need, unlike social interaction or whatever. But the human brain, I think, needs some kind of pleasure to function, so it's as good as any of a way to do that/actually a top tier way to (If only I could stop being hungry by rubbing my stomach!)
PS: Part of this philosophical manifesto I decided to scrawl on the funny pig poop balls forum is that we should simply allow ourselves to be unhappy sometimes. This is part of why I disagree with asceticism. Trying to squeeze happiness out of your brain instead of coaxing it out naturally is a recipe for disaster. Asceticism (at least how I think of it) Is basically trying to scream "BE HAPPY FUCKER!" at your brain and expecting it to be happy, somehow. You cannot moralize yourself into happiness! (Or meditate, ritualize, pray, or otherwise attempt to spiritually trick your brain into happiness. Those are all still part of a happy life, though, and can be effective coping mechanisms)
Realized I should make a short version: :melon-musk: (idk an emote for an ascetic) thinks you can be happy with nothing, :porky-happy: thinks line go up makes you happy, embrace :le-monke: but tempered with :lenin-laugh:
deleted by creator
I did edit it a bit so I hope you still agree, lol!
Also apologies for posting this on a new account, I forgort my last password.
deleted by creator
"communism is collectivism" takes are uniquely strange because they sound right on the surface, but are actually just complete projection in reality. Capitalism literally demands that human beings give up their individuality, goals, personal desires, hopes, dreams, and identity so they can survive.
deleted by creator
holy shit lmfao, capitalism literally is the borg, destroy this accursed world
deleted by creator
Capital itself is the true queen, but it will elevate a few effective subordinates for a time if it benefits 'the collective'.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
I don't agree that this is a universal truth, even regarding the hard indisputable biological needs you're talking about. Much less regarding softer needs like social interaction. There have been plenty of hermits throughout history who have by all accounts been content with their lifestyle.
Some people need social interaction to be happy or content, sure, that's fair. But not everyone does. A coworker of mine has severe insomnia. She probably hasn't had enough sleep to truly meet her biological needs for years. And yet, she still leads a life in which she feels happiness and contentment at least sometimes. I can't, of course, claim to speak to her feelings with any more specificity than that.
And here is where I see there being value in asceticism. By cutting out various pleasures and thinking about where that leaves you, you get a better feel for what your needs actually are.
I'm a little too baby-brained to have read enough Laozi to speak on this, but I've read a decent bit on buddhism and I agree that this sounds buddhist. The "middle way" that the Buddha taught was between hedonism and asceticism, a rejection of both to pursue something more moderate. I think, that's what I remember anyway.
A lot of what you've said here I've already accounted for (I know, I'm sorry I am very unclear :soviet-bottom: ) People's needs differ and change from person to person, as I've stated. Many hermits don't need social interaction at all, but would be completely miserable without various texts, rituals, or other activities, depending on the hermit. Take away a party goer's parties, and they'll be sad. Take away a monk's meditation, and they will be too. These are the same phenomenon, only really differentiated by an aesthetic (yes, I spelled that correctly) distaste for one activity/'need' or the other (from an abstract, philosophical perspect- Obviously those two activities have a lot of differences).
I don't think denying yourselves pleasures to find out what your own needs actually are really counts as asceticism. That just seems like an effective practice taken in pursuit of the "sane hedonism" I mentioned in my comment. I think calling it asceticism is understandable, yes, but actually kind of dangerous, because it implies that it's some sort of philosophical obligation or entire lifestyle by itself. Trying to moralize it could lead to it being counter-productive. Like, if you experience extreme discomfort but feel like you need to improve yourself now because happiness comes "entirely from within", you'll push yourself through a lot of suffering for a very low chance you'll "improve" yourself. But if you keep it in mind as a self-improvement exercise, you'll be able to use it to it's most effectiveness
Finally, and I think this is where the disagreement actually is, I would disagree with your definition of happiness. Certainly, struggling to survive despite not meeting one's goals AND feeling occasional joy at the same time is entirely possible, but this isn't really happiness. It's a momentary feeling that usually comes about from a slight improvement in circumstances or some other small joy. To go to my "genitals-regrowing-and-being-cut-off" example, a man who has their balls cut off over and over again would feel happiness once in a while. Probably when the pain is less than usual. But I wouldn't call that an actually happy person, just someone's who's surviving through their current situation, and being appreciative of the extremely minimal respites available. This is definitely a virtue, but it's not enough for happiness by itself.
And please do not confuse what I'm saying with some sort of disregard or criticism of self-improvement or even religious or spiritual lifestyles- Quite the opposite. What I am seeking to do here is point out that people have biological and psychological limitations, and, to a certain extent, push back against the hyper-efficient mindset that capitalism instills in a lot of people (Interestingly, the problematic elements of asceticism can be observed with the overlap between asceticism and techbro culture), which tries to insist that human beings only need to survive and not thrive.
Momentary joy can be created within, and so can it come from without, but actual happiness can only exist as a fusion of the two. A man who tells himself he needs nothing to be happy and denies himself everything and hides in a shack is going to be miserable, and so is someone who thinks that they can get true happiness by riding a stock line to infinity or having infinite cakes. Both of these people are trying to do what they think of as "what they are supposed to do" to be happy, and not actually what makes them happy.
This entire philosophy becomes more clear when you realize that the self and reality around you exist in a permanent, interconnected relationship. Your happiness (as in stable happiness, not momentary happiness), just like everything else, cannot be changed by focusing on only one or the other. It would be like trying to destroy capitalism without getting rid of various societal issues, and like trying to get rid of societal issues without getting rid of capitalism.
deleted by creator
Even the most minute treat production is bad because we as a species still struggle with providing the essentials of life to everyone, which makes the production of luxuries bad.
Asceticism is bad because it’s a strictly anti-materialist philosophy that has its roots in theology, as communists we want everyone to have the same amount of things, and that would require everyone participating in leisure which an ascetic would find materialistic. Truth is we need some sort of opiate for the masses, everyone needs to consume the media if it’s under leftist control.
And for finding a middle ground, while there’s recognition that leisure is a human need, and that some people need more treats than others. Overall there’s a certain amount of consumption that is expected of humans and it is all bad but we must work to accommodate it and eventually bring it down to nothing.
In utopia there would be no treats, everyone would essentially be the borg from star trek. That doesn’t mean there wouldn’t be excess however.
I agree with the premise, but I don't think it applies here. We don't actually struggle with providing the essentials of life to everyone, we simply aren't trying to. There are more empty houses than homeless people, enough food to feed everyone on Earth no problem. But the houses lay empty and the food goes in the trash. Cutting treat production will not solve the problems mentioned because the problem is not that there are too many treats and not enough essentials.
The core of asceticism is "you don't need stuff to be content" which is backed up by my own experiences in the real material world. I don't really care what it has its "roots" in.
🙄
You're going to go to the ascetic's house and force him to play mario kart at gunpoint?
deleted by creator
yeah I agree, but I was already deep into my reply. damn sunk cost fallacy
deleted by creator
deleted by creator