The problem of hedonism

[atheistgirl]

Think about the value of nothing and apply its worth to everything.

Why would anyone do that?

Should I not enjoy the luxury of a nice car just because one day it will end up on a heap?

Should I know let the horses fowl just because they’re going to die?

Should I not give a home to healthy abandoned dogs and give them a great natural life, just because they’re going to die one day anyhow?

Should I not have had the joy, the indescribable joy of a family and children, just because I’m going to die and upset them at some point?

And should they not have children and not know that level of happiness just because they too will die?

None of the above is in vain. It creates life, and love and happiness and work and jobs and money and makes the world go around

We know there’ll be no more earth after a point in time anyhow, that’s just a cosmological fact.

Why bother looking after the earth, and the soil, and the ecology, when it’s all just going to blow up anyhow? The rocks, and soil and mountains and lakes won’t end up in heaven, so why bother taking care of them when they’re not really relevant to the salvation of the soul, and they’re just going to end? Would it not be better, given the eternal reward waiting, to just let the earth die, (it’s going to anyhow) hasten the death of all living things, and those destined for eternal rewards will get it all the earlier?

Sarah x

 

[Portofino]

Why would anyone do that?

Should I not enjoy the luxury of a nice car just because one day it will end up on a heap?

Should I know let the horses fowl just because they’re going to die?

Should I not give a home to healthy abandoned dogs and give them a great natural life, just because they’re going to die one day anyhow?

Should I not have had the joy, the indescribable joy of a family and children, just because I’m going to die and upset them at some point?

And should they not have children and not know that level of happiness just because they too will die?

None of the above is in vain. It creates life, and love and happiness and work and jobs and money and makes the world go around

We know there’ll be no more earth after a point in time anyhow, that’s just a cosmological fact.

Why bother looking after the earth, and the soil, and the ecology, when it’s all just going to blow up anyhow? The rocks, and soil and mountains and lakes won’t end up in heaven, so why bother taking care of them when they’re not really relevant to the salvation of the soul, and they’re just going to end? Would it not be better, given the eternal reward waiting, to just let the earth die, (it’s going to anyhow) hasten the death of all living things, and those destined for eternal rewards will get it all the earlier?

Sarah x

There are great pleasures, that come from the fact that we have a mind and intelligence.

For example, I did not exist for eons before my birth. I was none the wiser, for example, when Brutus assasinated Caesar; when Alexander conquered the Greek world; when Christ lived and taught; nor in the year 1,000; nor in the year 1,500; nor was I there at the birth of the universe.

Yet, through the mind, I can contemplate all of this, and – in some sense – participate in it. Through the study of history, for example, I can connect my present experience with a contemplation of the past. Through science, I can look back into time – into the very beginning of the cosmos, and even look to the future and contemplate the fate of the earth, or of the universe itself. In terms of space, I can contemplate the immensity of the cosmos, and apprehend the earth’s place in it.

Through this present, this now, I can contemplate both the entirety of what is past and the entirety of what is future, existing – mentally – in a way that can indeed give me a glimpse of (or participation in) what we would call eternity.

This is how the Greek philosopher Epicurus put it, in any case: “Remember that you are mortal and that, although having but a limited span of life, you have entered into discussions on nature for all time and eternity and have seen ‘all things that are now and are to come and have been.’”

 

[Portofino]

This is a great post

Sarah x

Thank you, Sarah. I am always interested in reading your posts

 

[Sair]

It is not about infinite, it is if all actions have a null effect. Whatever you do or don’t do is all in vain for life and the universe are both ending. Think about the value of nothing and apply its worth to everything.

Do you really think you would live this way if you did not believe in an eternal afterlife?

Experiences last plenty long enough whilst we’re in amongst them for us to care about the effects of our actions and about the way the rest of the world affects us. To say that what we do in the here and now means ‘nothing’ because a hundred or a thousand years from now, no-one will remember us or feel the effects of our existence - and ultimately the entire universe will end anyway - is basically a denial of the existence of time and space and the cause-and-effect relationships that obtain within them.

As I think I’ve pointed out on a previous thread a while ago, it actually doesn’t matter, from our perspective as finite beings, that our existence is insignificant in the grand scheme of the universe. People who claim transcendence might say I’m making up the significance of my relationships and actions, that it’s just an illusion dwelling within my own limited awareness…but so what? The life I have now is the culmination of everything I am and have been, and regardless of whether the universe expends itself in a fiery death long after I am gone, the time and space in which I have existed will always have been mine. That is true for every being that has ever existed or will exist.

 

[InJesusItrust]

Reason along with naturalism leads to this conclusion. I sought God because reason plainly tells me that that is the only intellectually honest conclusion given the premise that there is no transcendent.

I can’t be happy living a vain life. I can’t will myself to consider that life is important if I know that reason tells me that it isn’t.

“Have you ever heard of the madman who on a bright morning lighted a lantern and ran to the market-place calling out unceasingly: ‘I seek God! I seek God!’ As there were many people standing about who did not believe in God, he caused a great deal of amusement. Why! is he lost? said one. Has he strayed away like a child? said another. Or does he keep himself hidden? Is he afraid of us? Has he taken a sea-voyage? Has he emigrated? the people cried out laughingly, all in a hubbub. The insane man jumped into their midst and transfixed them with his glances. ‘Where is God gone?’ he called out. ‘I mean to tell you! We have killed him, you and I! We are all his murderers! But how have we done it? How were we able to drink up the sea? Who gave us the sponge to wipe away the whole horizon? What did we do when we loosened this earth from its sun? Whither does it now move? Whither do we move? Away from all suns? Do we not dash on unceasingly? Backwards, sideways, forwards, in all directions? Is there still an above and below? Do we not stray, as through infinite nothingness? Does not empty space breathe upon us? Has it not become colder? Does not night come on continually, darker and darker? Shall we not have to light lanterns in the morning? Do we not hear the noise of the grave-diggers who are burying God? Do we not smell the divine putrefaction? —for even Gods putrefy! God is dead! God remains dead! And we have killed him! How shall we console ourselves, the most murderous of all murderers? The holiest and the mightiest that the world has hitherto possessed, has bled to death under our knife—who will wipe away the blood from us? With what water could we cleanse ourselves? What lustrums, what sacred games shall we have to devise? Is not the magnitude of this deed too great for us? Shall we not ourselves have to become Gods, merely to seem worthy of it? There never was a greater event—and on account of it, all who are born after us belong to a higher history than any history hitherto!’—Here the madman was silent and looked again at his hearers; they also were silent and looked at him in surprise. At last he threw his lantern on the ground, so that it broke in pieces and was extinguished. ‘I come too early,’ he then said, ‘I am not yet at the right time. This prodigious event is still on its way, and is travelling—it has not yet reached men’s ears. Lightning and thunder need time, the light of the stars needs time, deeds need time, even after they are done, to be seen and heard. This deed is as yet further from them than the furthest star—and yet they have done it!”.

 

[Sair]

I can’t be happy living a vain life. I can’t will myself to consider that life is important if I know that reason tells me that it isn’t.

Why does your life have to be important to anyone other than yourself and your loved ones? The fact that we instinctively strive to remain living should be enough indication that life actually is important to living things, including ourselves, even if no-one else particularly cares.

As a side note, this experience for you should highlight the fact that people like me cannot will ourselves to believe in a personal god when reason tells us there is most likely no such being…

 

[InJesusItrust]

The answer is you only have to live so long as someone who loves you exists. When nobody needs you and you have no value what is the point of living? Even psychologists agree that all people need to feel valued to have the will to live. People usually give themselves the feeling of being valued by trying to gain fame or a significant other. Realizing that everything has no value is a disturbing discovery if you are willing to accept this uncomfortable reasoning.

 

[Sair]

The answer is you only have to live so long as someone who loves you exists. When nobody needs you and you have no value what is the point of living? Even psychologists agree that all people need to feel valued to have the will to live. People usually give themselves the feeling of being valued by trying to gain fame or a significant other. Realizing that everything has no value is a disturbing discovery if you are willing to accept this uncomfortable reasoning.

And now we get to the rub - value, almost by definition, is subjective and the subjective valuation depends upon circumstances. If this seems doubtful, just consider the value of a bowl of rice or of a diamond, to a wealthy Western socialite or to a hungry Third World child.

There is a difference between value and utility in this regard. Of course people need to feel that they are important to someone, preferably someone other than just themselves. But the point of living, even if all your friends have already died, say, might simply be because you enjoy life - not to mention the possibility of forming new relationships with other people who will value you in their turn.

And at the end of the day, it’s all very well to imagine there’s a god who values your life, to suppose that you’ll meet your loved ones again after you die…but I fail to see how this is in any way less illusory than the feeling that one’s own life is valuable, just because you happen to feel that it is.

 

[InJesusItrust]

If value is only subjective and not objective if means that there is no value. You can’t say “This is my truth and this is your truth and they are both true”. There is truth, and either one has it or one doesn’t. If two people come to contradictory conclusions at most only one can be right. To put the criteria for deciding if life is valuable into the realm of the subjective just means that there is no true value for life. Essentially a suicidal teenager and Al Gore are both right even though they contradict each other on the question on if life is valuable. This means life is only as valuable as you choose to make it be. We are no viewing things as they really are, but as how we each choose to believe they are. This premise leads to intellectual dishonesty, and anyone who loves truth will never be able to accept it.

I don’t just feel, but I know, because I have experienced the reality of God. And that came because I sought Him, realizing how absurd life is without a God.

 

[Sair]

If value is only subjective and not objective if means that there is no value. You can’t say “This is my truth and this is your truth and they are both true”. There is truth, and either one has it or one doesn’t. If two people come to contradictory conclusions at most only one can be right. To put the criteria for deciding if life is valuable into the realm of the subjective just means that there is no true value for life. Essentially a suicidal teenager and Al Gore are both right even though they contradict each other on the question on if life is valuable. This means life is only as valuable as you choose to make it be. We are no viewing things as they really are, but as how we each choose to believe they are. This premise leads to intellectual dishonesty, and anyone who loves truth will never be able to accept it.

I don’t just feel, but I know, because I have experienced the reality of God. And that came because I sought Him, realizing how absurd life is without a God.

I have experienced the feeling of being valued and valuing others. In that respect, I know my life is just as valuable as it needs to be. Do you merely assume this is not legitimate experience compared to the experience of your god?

What is true, what is fact, is that humans are subjective beings and experience value for certain things, circumstances and beings. Your value for your concept of god is just an example of this propensity to impart value. That does not make it illusory - it makes it a reality of your experience.

 

[InJesusItrust]

JIf there is a transcendent there is an absolute and there is objective truth. If there is no objective truth then we are both right. The Christian God exists and does not. Life is both worthless and valuable. Two objects and two objects are both four and twenty. Do you accept such insanity? If subjectivity decides truth we have to.

 

[Sair]

JIf there is a transcendent there is an absolute and there is objective truth. If there is no objective truth then we are both right. The Christian God exists and does not. Life is both worthless and valuable. Two objects and two objects are both four and twenty. Do you accept such insanity? If subjectivity decides truth we have to.

Subjectivity doesn’t decide truth - it is a truth about certain animals, including humans. The claim of existence is a factual claim that is, in principle, testable - and it’s quite apparent that subjective experience exists. If one person feels that their life is worthless, what is true is that they feel that way - it doesn’t necessarily mean their life is actually worthless, nor does it mean there are not others who experience value for that person’s existence, hence making it valuable to those others. When many religious believers claim that life is valuable, what they mean is that their lives are valued by God, who, if he exists and is sentient (which he must be, to have intelligence and emotion), subjectively experiences that value. All that the religious claim boils down to is the notion that it’s somehow better and more meaningful to be valued by God than to be valued by mortals. It doesn’t stop some people from feeling that their lives are worthless or meaningless, at least during their earthly existence.

But subjective experience simply is a fact about sentient beings. You don’t need transcendence to tell you that.

The very experience of value is entirely relational and largely subjective, when we move beyond basic needs. Even the meeting of basic needs changes perception of values - we might not hold a great value for plain rice, for example, and feel the need to dress it up with other things to provide flavour and texture and so on, to enhance our experience of eating. On the other hand, if we lived in a country in which plain rice was the only available staple food, the value we subjectively attached to it would be enormous by comparison. This doesn’t make any difference to the factual, objective characteristics of rice. What is different is the relationship between the rice and those who consume it.