Give me one (1) good reason "thoughtful" hedonism/egoism (recognizing that helping others can indirectly help you, knowing some self-control will lead to greater overall pleasure) isn't the perfect and most logical philosophy.
I really am open to changing my mind but if you use the concept of morality in your argument, you're going to have to convince me of the merits of morality first.
first, tell me what the fuck is that person wearing, then we'll talk.
Rick Owens, baby
>rick owen '''''''''''''fashion'''''''''''''
Veeky Forums has become a joke, i can't believe people actually dress like this.
It's an image from a designer photoshoot, and that's a model. Next to no one wear those clothes off the runway
i should fucking hope not.
then why make them?
As a kind of art exhibition and to draw attention to the clothes he sells that are better suited for day-to-day wear
I really didn't think that image was going to distract from the question this much
all he's done successfully is make a twat out of a model. besides, rick owens is all overpriced leather garbage, all the same stuff.
I'm just explaining why that occurs in the world of designer clothing, I'm not even defending Rick
It was just an image I had saved that I randomly chose
it's so stupid though. what is the place for fashion in your philosophy?
fashion = fascism
...
well now you know what happens when you choose an image more interesting than the thread topic
>here's some clothes i made that you'll never wear, look at them before you buy my jeans, plz
I know that rule well, I just didn't think that image fit the bill
And painters make works that you will never buy or most likely see in real life but you can still enjoy them if you like what they've made
just post a pair of anime titties next time desu
Alright, will do
Because it's still derived from the myth of self-interest.
What aspect of self-interest is a myth?
>people getting buttflustered over one of his most tame designs
jfc you are some sheltered fucks. I bet you go to the museum to see a picasso and think "durr this isnt art, stoopid millennials" because you're so ignorant you dont know abstract art has been around for 100 years
Trying to define either "self" or "interest" makes both concepts fall apart.
>logic
>good
>real
top kek
>some rags on some whore
>muh art
puh-leez
I really really hate that approach to philosophy.
>hurr i can abstract every concept into oblivion, that means emotion and base experience should be done away with and not taken into account
I can feel good. I can feel pleasure. As abstract and meaningless as you can make it seem, I feel that.
>Philosophy is just ethics
What dumbass "philosophy" school did you attend?
welcome to the bleak land of postmodern thought, pleb. now try chewing on new sincerity.
Good point, but I think it was implied that I am referring to the area of philosophy that deals with ethics, behavior, societal roles, how to view situations, etc
If you're not going to abide by the rules of language, why should anybody take anything you say seriously?
NS is for fucks, nothing's wrong with doing sincerity like they used to
Because the dilemma is that this is not an issue that concerns linguistics, yet I can only communicate it to you through language. You are fixated on the tool and not the intent. That isn't a bad thing to do in itself, but when it distracts from the question at hand instead of clarifying it, you have gone too far.
Why shouldn't they?
No, the issue is that you do not communicate any intent because you elect to use terms that have no meaning.
>t. i don't understand new sincerity
it's not as simple as being genuine, it's being genuine in spite of the knowledge of it all being meaningless. all the sarcasm is just a byproduct of this, hidden in the sarcasm lies the heart, using it as a method of communication in the bleak world itself. cmon. even babbies know this.
>have no meaning
Fuck off anal autistic
t.never felt happiness
And yet I never used the terms "self" or "interest."
You extracted those words from what I said because you understand that they are related concepts. That proves that you understood me and that you are needlessly abstracting things
Fucking post-modernists, I swear to god.
>mfw he's right
try new sincerity, friend.
(note the "friend" at the end, the sarcasm that is actually genuine)
Please do tell me how I could have correctly asked the question I posed in the OP
>insincerely telling someone to try new sincerity
You are a blight on your species.
>implying that it was insincere
i genuinely want you to try new sincerity. the point is that you have to mask the communication with a seeming sarcastic smirk. the problem is that unless you're thinking in new sincerity, you get things muddled up. so when i say friend, you think it sarcastic, and it sounds sarcastic, but in fact, i am being genuine, it wouldn't make you even consider what i say, wouldn't even bring it to your attention without that little keycard.
the point is that you can't get the post-modern cat back into the bag. it's out there, and it's hissing and foaming, and needs hugs, sincere, happy hugs. but you need to get scratched a little first, and might need to grab the cat with a little force.
I refuse to do ANYTHING that contributes to the tumorous cancer that is modern-day irony and insincerity. I am not afraid to let my ideas be attacked directly instead of obeying some ridiculous dogma and hiding behind an impenetrable wall of irony, obscurity, and blame-shifting like a fucking coward.
why are you so worked up? i'm not that other guy. please calm down. it's not a wall of protection, it's a key to get through OTHER people's walls built up in response to the horror of post-modernity and the fearful state that abstraction brings upon us. it's not about protecting the self, it's about communicating with others in a way that they won't scoff at or ignore, because they have no choice to do otherwise without feeling like hypocrites.
You sound like a bitter nerd.
Why are you saying this now though? Do I need rephase my response even though it was accepted that the OP was about self-interest for the past few posts?
>recognizing that helping others can indirectly help you, knowing some self-control will lead to greater overall pleasure
This just assumes that "pleasure" is some kind of ultimate goal.
>why are you so worked up?
Because I am really frustrated by the effect post-modern academia has had on the philosophical thought process. Philosophical post-modernism leaked out of the realm of linguistics and tainted the water of every philosophical area of focus. It renders every question and thought "wrong" and drags the big ugly heaving subject of irony into every conversation, conversations that should have NOTHING to do with irony.
Am I overreacting? Of course. I haven't yet figured out any way to solve the issue and it's not a good feeling.
>This just assumes that "pleasure" is some kind of ultimate goal.
That's the fucking point, that's the philosophy in question. My goodness gracious, it's almost like you're compensating for the fact that you have no argument against hedonism
Hedonism is dead tho. Killed by the Experience Machine thought experiment.
i just told you, you can't get the cat back into the bag. to fight against that is to fight against the current of the culture you exist in. i mean, think about why DFW killed himself, for instance! it's frustrating to me as well, but what choice do you have? to pretend that it doesn't exist will only serve you with alienation. i'm in the same boat, but i think sincerity is key, but how to reach sincerity beyond this knowledge and doubt inherent in abstraction? by turning it against itself, warping it around and giving the irony and sarcasm and hypocrisy and impregnating it with a thick and creamy load of meaning and fulfillment. look even at comedy, stand up comedy, (the smart kind), where analysis of an instance that we all have thought, moments we all share, but didn't think to express it, or weren't brave enough to face it without acknowledging the irony of it all first, and in the end, sharing with people like yourself the idea that we're not different. communication, if you will, meaningful communication. but we must go through the motions before this is accomplished, unfortunately. i think there's a light at the end of the tunnel, no matter how ridiculous that sounds.
in the end, the real frustration here is the inability to communicate with someone without resorting to psychological warfare at every turn.
The Experience Machine is completely ridiculous and in no way kills hedonism. It may be one of the worst thought experiments I've ever read.
Nozick didn't actually provide a single good reason not to plug into the machine.
>We want to do certain things, and not just have the experience of doing them. "It is only because we first want to do the actions that we want the experiences of doing them."
Horseshit, doing something is ONLY experiencing it. To believe otherwise is essentially an arbitrary appeal to nature.
>We want to be a certain sort of person. "Someone floating in a tank is an indeterminate blob."
You would not know that while plugged in. You would feel completely like whatever kind of person you'd want to be, providing that person is what is most pleasurable to you.
>Plugging into an experience machine limits us to a man-made reality (it limits us to what we can make). "There is no actual contact with any deeper reality, though the experience of it can be simulated."
You would not know that while plugged in. If the experience the machine was giving you did not feel genuine and thus subtracted from the pleasure, it wouldn't be the same machine proposed in the experiment.
It's all essentially an appeal to nature
i don't know what the experience machine is, but i like the utility monster. kind of a practice in empathy.
en.wikipedia.org
Robert Nozick has a machine for you that will give you any pleasurable experience you want if you plug yourself into it. Sounds great right? I know I'd be perfectly fine with plugging in and staying there forever.
WRONG! Nozick knows what you REALLY want. Allow him to explain to you why you're actually wrong and don't know what you want. Nozick graciously tells you what to want.
Experience machines already exist: the heavens of various religions.
And everyone still wants to go there
Because religions have an unspoken hedonist agreement
psh. this is literally part of the movie The Matrix. humans built a real life simulator and created machines to tend to them while they're plugged in, hence why seemingly brilliant AI can't just reach escape velocity with enough energy from the human batteries and just float around in space and gather energy from suns.
anyway, this is a pretty dumb argument, people have already chosen this, by watching tv, eating food until they're massive blobs, etc.
besides, isn't pleasure a fulfillment of a desire? wouldn't this fulfillment include the sensation of being accomplished in actions? yeesh, this is probably the least convincing thought experiment i've seen.
some self-control won't cut it
easy out
i leave emcees with doubt
my name is booty brown and i'm proceedin
No, the Christian heaven is not an 'experience machine'. The Christian heaven is God's Kingdom, and it is painful and extremely uncomfortable to those used to sin.
>>here's some clothes i made that you'll never wear, look at them before you buy my jeans, plz
>heres a few supermodels that will definitely be your wife, and here are explosions behind you that will definitely happen, if you buy this car
>I really didn't think that image was going to distract from the question this much
Its a good answer to your op.
Retarded fashion is a good argument against hedonism/egoism
>No, the issue is that you do not communicate any intent because you elect to use terms that have no meaning.
How do you know that the terms do not have meaning? How do you know that you are not just ignorant? That you think you have found a profound trick, that you have pulled back the veil, standing outside the cave, speaking to an user in it, when really the veil you pulled, was one layer of onion, and it is you who should be crying, and it is you who shall consider your self cut
>Philosophical post-modernism leaked out of the realm of linguistics and tainted the water of every philosophical area of focus
How... How are there not people that say "That doesnt make sense, that is incorrect, that is meaningless, pointless, incoherent, unproductive, there is no reason to do that, this is not a constructive contribution to this field of intellectual and physical realization"
Are you talking about the /pol/ cultural marxist pc prof from a different angle, same thing? You think liberal arts professors are idiots? Something is lacking? they are teaching wrong info? The curriculums are wrong?
But what does what mean?
it was a moment of frustration, don't worry about it, he's figured it out now.
>"thoughtful" hedonism/egoism
this just strikes me as a nice way of saying "I don't give a shit about anyone but myself but also I am too afraid to actually live that way"
My nigga you just got blown the fuck out
Does anyone else have a problem with high fashion as a means of self-expression?
It's so outrageously expensive and inaccessible that any artistic vision becomes overshadowed by how out of place you are.
high fashion is made by fashion designers to be enjoyed by fashion designers. It's just a circle jerk thing, like a video game general on Veeky Forums
fashion is art on the body. A large subset of fashion isn't actually designed to be worn day to day, or even at all.
t. I studied fashion and design
>implying that a fucking shirt could ever be anything more than a shirt
irisvanherpen.com
alexandermcqueen.com
don't fucking embarrass yourself.
this is literally the dumbest shit i've ever seen. you should be ashamed that you think this is remotely redeemable in any sense. i genuinely feel sorry for you.
alexandermcqueen.com
1200 bucks for a wal-mart sweater
also, this fucking picture. you think this retarded shit is art? bitch looks like she rolled through a barbershop with glue on herself.
spoken like a true Veeky Forumsizen. suck salt.
>being this butthurt over fucking clothing
look, i know this is probably your life passion or something, but c'mon. some fuzzy vulture on stilts is just silly as fuck and you know it. if you experience intensely poignant moments from gazing at stuff like this, you need to check yourself. I went to the modern art museum the other day, and an artist was displaying his gallery, he was with a crowd of people, speaking about one of his pieces, it was a macbook cut into fourths and pasted together again at random, he expressed how this was his brain, and that it was symbolic of his mind during the art process. i laughed. very loudly. people looked at me angrily, a fat man in a stupid jacket i've had for years, i could see it in their eyes, "how could this idiot loser laugh at this?!" they said. People like this really think they're superior, and it's the funniest fucking thing in the world. that 1200 dollar wal-mart sweater is the exemplification of this. it's your chopped up macbook.
You do realize you're basically admitting to being a fucking retard, right? Even toddlers can appreciate aesthetics, and being too stupid to recognize talent, even if it isn't something you really care about or like isn't a virtue. Get your shit together.
>you realize that you're a retard because you don't think utter bullshit is genius like i do, obviously i'm superior to you in every way!
okay buddy, i'm sorry your plastic vulture isn't compelling in any way.
Iris van Herpen is one of the most celebrated avant garde fashion designers in history. You don't have to like it, but don't pretend you're anything else other than a pretentious fuckwit who thinks calling something bullshit is the same as having a valid opinion.
>t. i paid a lot of money to learn about how the emperor's clothes are really amazing
yes yes, now go buy a 4,000 dollar pom pom dress.
Logical in terms of what
Explain what's interesting about that Iris van Herpen fit.
Genuinely curious.
Because other people will not cooperate with you until you cooperate with them.
/thread
>helping others can indirectly help you, knowing some self-control will lead to greater overall pleasure
Because it's not true, even where there's a correlation it's not a reliable causation.
>you're going to have to convince me of the merits of morality first
if you're not willing to accept the idea of morality existing as something that can authoritatively instruct your actions without requiring any exterior justification, you may as well just go and be a edgy faggot nihilist like you very clearly want to
Studies on the experience machine have pretty consistently found that some people would do it and some wouldn't, which indicates that overwhelming experiential bliss is sufficient incentive for some people while others have other overriding concerns and/or place less value in what the experience machine offers.
Iris van Herpen is, like I said before, an avant garde designer. She uses a lot of new materials for her works, and has a lot of bio-futuristic vibe to her stuff. She kind of like the HR Geiger of fashion. Famously, her snake dress. Her sets are pretty fucking amazing too.
Check out this one, from 2014. She vacuum sealed models for aesthetic.
youtube.com
That wasn't very good.
What I meant by new materials is that she's very experimental with the materials she uses, often being the first to use newly developed materials, or also just materials you wouldn't think to use, like wood. I think she was also one of the first designers to implement 3D printing technology, when it first came out.
As far as comparing her to HR Geiger, the more I'm reacquainting myself with her stuff, the more it fits. It is very bio-futuristic, and detailed, and impressive to look at, but also vaguely unsettling. Angry space chic, that kind of thing.
This is her "micro-cathedral" wooden dress.
but she's wearing a block of wood.
As someone who browses both Veeky Forums and Veeky Forums this thread is embarassing.
OP is completely failing at philosophy and Veeky Forums is completely failing at fashion. And both parts remain oblivious of their ignorance.
and a book is just wood pulp
I don't know what you're trying to say
>failing at fashion
where'd you study?
yah but the wood pulp has squiggles on it that tell me about dragons and theological moral systems and russian aristocracy. what does that block of wood do?
In münich. At a 200 year old masters school.
Don't ever reply to me again.
Are you... are you not seeing the intricate designs? The delicate work? The deconstruction of gothic architecture applied to the form?
I'm legitimately confused. Are you trying to imply that it isn't impressive?
yep. i see no purpose to this wooden toothpick strapped to this meat toothpick. no aesthetic merit whatsoever.
not seeing how this can even compare to squiggles, either.
make me
>yep. i see no purpose to this wooden toothpick strapped to this meat toothpick. no aesthetic merit whatsoever.
then I can't help you
didn't ask for your help.
a shirt is still just a fucking shirt after all.