Actually, success at the cost of your morals — your conscience — can bring you pleasure, comfort, even contentment. But it’s not real success, and it’s certainly not happiness. True happiness is being able to look in the mirror and be at peace.
“Accepted personal morals” is an awkward usage; “accepted morals” and “personal morals” may be very different. I’d say the latter are more important, but it kind of depends on whether you want to feel like a success or just be perceived as a success…
I don’t know about the philosphy background, but fritzoid makes a very good point. I am sure there are places where the “accepted morals” is to not drink alcohol but it is permissable to cheat (at least a little) on your income taxes. My “personal morals” happen to be exactly opposite that. Still, to be perceived as moral, I cannot be seen with alcohol even though it does not violate my moral code. And so on down the line of other issues and topics.
prfesser, I took an introductory course in Ethics many years ago in college (still my favorite branch), but mostly I’m an autodidact. I like thinking about such things, but when I try to read actual philosophy texts the terminology defeats me (“philosophical novels” are more my speed).
prfesser, my problem with the terminology is simply that I’m a layman. When Sartre comments on terms that were coined by Kierkegaard, and Kierkegaard is commenting on terms that were coined by Nietzsche, and Neitzsche is commenting on terms that were coined by whoever (I’m just throwing out names here; they’re not significant in and of themselves), it’s as technical a jargon as anything in physics or medicine or any other specialized field, but I don’t assume it’s meaningless just because I’m unfamiliar with it. I can grasp the concepts (if they’re distilled in a secondary source), in the same way I grasped the concepts of physics when I took Physics for Non-Majors (“Physics for Poets”) in college, without having to do the math.
Socrates said somewhere that Philosophy has two purposes: (1) to seek out and understand the Truth whatever that may be, and (2) to use that understanding of Truth to “live a better life” or “make the world a better place” (the difference, perhaps, between Theoretical Philosophy and Applied Philosophy). My own ponderings lead me to believe that the first is, ultimately, unknowable (or at least unprovable), and the the second is my main concern (given that I don’t have the luxury to devote my life exclusively to such questions). What interests me about Ethics is that it is fundamentally applicable; it concerns how we choose to behave during our objective existence. I know SOMETHING about Existentialism, but questions about Being and Nothingness, Existence and Essence (and so on) seem to me to be tail-chasing and not a productive use of my limited (under any metaphysical system) time as a Human on Earth. The questions of whether we have Free Will or our choices are mechanistically predetermined seem moot to me; we have NO CHOICE but to act as if we have Free Will, even if we don’t (I’m aware of the paradox). Speculative philosophy seems to me to be a dead end (metaphysics, for instance, I consider nothing but a fun game to play).
Anyway, it seems to me that the choices about how we behave ethically/morally in this world are the ONLY questions (just about) that are worth asking, because whether you believe in an afterlife or not the worst outcome I can think of is to lie on one’s deathbed and think “I wish I’d done things differently” (up to that point, everything is remediable or at least mitigable).
I think I’m fundamentally a pragmatist, my pragmatism expressing itself not so much in “What will be to my personal advantage?” but “What will cause me the least regret?” It is good to maximize one’s pleasure in this life but, life ending and those pleasures being past, it is good not to have gained one’s pleasures at the cost of another’s suffering, someone who is as deserving and desirous of a pleasurable life as you were.
Of course, I acknowledge the possibility that I’m wrong about everything (which, if it were needed, is sufficient proof that I have a “background in philosophy”).
The well-wishing is mutual, prfesser. Again, not being comfortable with the terminology, I couldn’t say with any certainty that I’m a Utilitarian but I could say I’m a utilitarian (I also consider myself an existentialist but not necessarily an Existentialist).
Risking tautology, I find philosophy interesting to the extent it interests me, and useful to the extent I can use it.
Concerning the transposition of Kierkegaard and Nietzsche, thanks. I know a bit about Nietzsche but not much about Kiekegaard (that’s why I provided the disclaimer about just throwing out names). When it comes to Melancholy Danes, give me Hamlet any day.
“There are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in our philosophy.”
comicgos over 13 years ago
“Don’t eat the steak” - that’s always a good tip!
MontanaLady over 13 years ago
Oh, Great Guru, just who is supposed to be sacrificing these accepted personal morals???
GROG Premium Member over 13 years ago
Tipping is not a city in China.
Good Morning, Fellow Cave Dwellers.
Coyoty Premium Member over 13 years ago
Don’t give him a tip. If he’s unhappy, you’ll have your answer.
pamlicorat over 13 years ago
Good Morning All
Tip: Buy low & sell high.
wicky over 13 years ago
Tip: stay out of show business.
peter0423 over 13 years ago
Actually, success at the cost of your morals — your conscience — can bring you pleasure, comfort, even contentment. But it’s not real success, and it’s certainly not happiness. True happiness is being able to look in the mirror and be at peace.
Superfrog over 13 years ago
Success is easier to obtain when you have the harmony in your life that comes from achieving the perfect balance between caffiene and alcohol.
phillipmorris over 13 years ago
Tip: Always look at the knife before you order a steak. If it looks like a saw, the steak will probably be tough.
NE1956 over 13 years ago
About a 10 1/2 in trainers or 11 in boots.
DesultoryPhillipic over 13 years ago
Cricketeyes in the third, $5.00 window.
TheDOCTOR over 13 years ago
odeliasimone over 13 years ago
So… success and happiness are tied into money! I knew it! I knew it!
Neanderthal over 13 years ago
Don’t give up your day job.
fritzoid Premium Member over 13 years ago
“Accepted personal morals” is an awkward usage; “accepted morals” and “personal morals” may be very different. I’d say the latter are more important, but it kind of depends on whether you want to feel like a success or just be perceived as a success…
TexTech over 13 years ago
I don’t know about the philosphy background, but fritzoid makes a very good point. I am sure there are places where the “accepted morals” is to not drink alcohol but it is permissable to cheat (at least a little) on your income taxes. My “personal morals” happen to be exactly opposite that. Still, to be perceived as moral, I cannot be seen with alcohol even though it does not violate my moral code. And so on down the line of other issues and topics.
fritzoid Premium Member over 13 years ago
prfesser, I took an introductory course in Ethics many years ago in college (still my favorite branch), but mostly I’m an autodidact. I like thinking about such things, but when I try to read actual philosophy texts the terminology defeats me (“philosophical novels” are more my speed).
fritzoid Premium Member over 13 years ago
prfesser, my problem with the terminology is simply that I’m a layman. When Sartre comments on terms that were coined by Kierkegaard, and Kierkegaard is commenting on terms that were coined by Nietzsche, and Neitzsche is commenting on terms that were coined by whoever (I’m just throwing out names here; they’re not significant in and of themselves), it’s as technical a jargon as anything in physics or medicine or any other specialized field, but I don’t assume it’s meaningless just because I’m unfamiliar with it. I can grasp the concepts (if they’re distilled in a secondary source), in the same way I grasped the concepts of physics when I took Physics for Non-Majors (“Physics for Poets”) in college, without having to do the math.
Socrates said somewhere that Philosophy has two purposes: (1) to seek out and understand the Truth whatever that may be, and (2) to use that understanding of Truth to “live a better life” or “make the world a better place” (the difference, perhaps, between Theoretical Philosophy and Applied Philosophy). My own ponderings lead me to believe that the first is, ultimately, unknowable (or at least unprovable), and the the second is my main concern (given that I don’t have the luxury to devote my life exclusively to such questions). What interests me about Ethics is that it is fundamentally applicable; it concerns how we choose to behave during our objective existence. I know SOMETHING about Existentialism, but questions about Being and Nothingness, Existence and Essence (and so on) seem to me to be tail-chasing and not a productive use of my limited (under any metaphysical system) time as a Human on Earth. The questions of whether we have Free Will or our choices are mechanistically predetermined seem moot to me; we have NO CHOICE but to act as if we have Free Will, even if we don’t (I’m aware of the paradox). Speculative philosophy seems to me to be a dead end (metaphysics, for instance, I consider nothing but a fun game to play).
Anyway, it seems to me that the choices about how we behave ethically/morally in this world are the ONLY questions (just about) that are worth asking, because whether you believe in an afterlife or not the worst outcome I can think of is to lie on one’s deathbed and think “I wish I’d done things differently” (up to that point, everything is remediable or at least mitigable).
I think I’m fundamentally a pragmatist, my pragmatism expressing itself not so much in “What will be to my personal advantage?” but “What will cause me the least regret?” It is good to maximize one’s pleasure in this life but, life ending and those pleasures being past, it is good not to have gained one’s pleasures at the cost of another’s suffering, someone who is as deserving and desirous of a pleasurable life as you were.
Of course, I acknowledge the possibility that I’m wrong about everything (which, if it were needed, is sufficient proof that I have a “background in philosophy”).
fritzoid Premium Member over 13 years ago
The well-wishing is mutual, prfesser. Again, not being comfortable with the terminology, I couldn’t say with any certainty that I’m a Utilitarian but I could say I’m a utilitarian (I also consider myself an existentialist but not necessarily an Existentialist).
Risking tautology, I find philosophy interesting to the extent it interests me, and useful to the extent I can use it.
Concerning the transposition of Kierkegaard and Nietzsche, thanks. I know a bit about Nietzsche but not much about Kiekegaard (that’s why I provided the disclaimer about just throwing out names). When it comes to Melancholy Danes, give me Hamlet any day.
“There are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in our philosophy.”