@jknilinux,
jknilinux wrote:DA: So, are you cyrenaic?
I only have a little to go on - as this is the first time I have come across the term. I don't think so based on the introduction I read here:
Cyrenaics [Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy]
I certainly don't regard myself as a hedonist - I tend to agree with Ambrose Bierce's view on such things.
DEBAUCHEE,
n. One who has so earnestly pursued pleasure that he has had the misfortune to overtake it.
Quote:As empiricists, they believe that all that we have access to as a potential source of knowledge are our own experiences. These experiences are private to each of us. We can have incorrigible knowledge of our experiences (that is, it impossible to be mistaken about what we are currently experiencing), but not of the objects that cause us to have these experiences. This results in their skepticism--their conviction that we cannot have knowledge of the external world.
I would say this is true.
EDIT: On second thoughts I think it is very much possible to be mistaken about current experiences - so I don't fully agree with them on this point.
Quote:The Cyrenaics are unabashed sensual hedonists: the highest good is my own pleasure, with all else being valuable only as a means to securing my own pleasure, and bodily pleasures are better than mental pleasures.
But I'm not a fan of this sort of thinking.
I think really what I would value is a moral relativity, a flexibility toward beliefs. I like the philosophy of Schopenhauer and I'm a huge fan of John Gray (himself a big fan of Schopenhauer).
Nihilism strikes me as a freedom from belief - I think there is a base hypocrisy to it - in that it is a belief system too - but that sole hypocrisy strikes me as less apparent than the hypocrisy in other systems.
Because a true nihilist (if there could be such a thing) would start from a position of having no beliefs or values then he or she has to take what I see as a degree of responsibility for their behaviour - it has to be built up without using any excuses. I have always seen this as the aim of existentialism - you can't blame God or Satan or your parents or school teachers for what you are - ultimately you can only blame you.
And I think to some extent it helps you recognise that many of the most obvious and comforting things you might hold dear are just stories - it can give you a clearer sense of perspective.
For example I think William's idea that "the point of our existence is to create a reality in which all will enjoy life as they eagerly anticipate a better tomorrow" is a nice thing to believe in - I admire it and until a few years ago thought a similar maxim to "enjoy life and try and leave the world a better place" was a good one - but note how one man's better place is another's Hell. Humans differ in so many degrees about what "a better place" is.
I also worry, a little, if believing similar stories about, say, how we will all get wealthier, or how we can't significantly damage the environment, have got us into a rather awkward fix - and might mean a rather uncertain near future in which many will have to adapt their beliefs and values to survive.
In the meantime there is still love and humour and music and good food and all the other things that make life worth living - and I don't see how enjoyment on them depends on beliefs.
But I do accept that it is an austere way of looking things, and I reckon many might find it a gloomy or barren vision - but I personally, honestly find it liberating.