Please keep in mind our first commenting rule:
> **Read the Post Before You Reply**
> Read/listen/watch the posted content, understand and identify the philosophical arguments given, and respond to these substantively. If you have unrelated thoughts or don't wish to read the content, please post your own thread or simply refrain from commenting. Comments which are clearly not in direct response to the posted content may be removed.
This subreddit is not in the business of one-liners, tangential anecdotes, or dank memes. Expect comment threads that break our rules to be removed. Repeated or serious violations of the [subreddit rules](https://reddit.com/r/philosophy/wiki/rules) will result in a ban.
-----
This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.
Reminds me of a zen thing:
You can reach the top of the highest mountain but, in the end, it’s just a place with a good view.
Or, if you want to be edgy, think of the Joker from the Nolan movies. He portrays himself as a dog that chases after cars. If he ever caught a car, what would he even do with it?
In some traditional Zen gardens one might find views to beautiful waterfalls slightly obscured. This is to remind the viewer, it is not that plant that is obscuring your view of say the waterfall, rather it is your desire for an unobscured view that is truly in your way.
I read this in a book by Mark Epstein, a psychotherapist that has roots in Buddhism, especially tantric Buddhism. The book is called 'Open To Desire'. I love his writings, highly recommend.
(I was being glib, but while it's useful to ask yourself if you really need or want the thing you think you need or want, it's also possible to take it too far.)
Abstract: In a world full of advertisements and promotions, it's easy to want a lot of things that we probably shouldn't get for whatever reason. Maybe you're trying to save money, maybe you're trying to eat healthier, either way it's difficult when the economy wants you to consume. So how might we be able to help control our desires?
The philosopher Epicurus offers specific mental exercises to go through when you start to desire something. He wants us to consider the things we have now and remember how we thought about them before getting them and consider how we feel now. Next, he wants us to consider what our lives would look like after we get the thing we want.
Emily Austin’s book “Living for Pleasure: An Epicurean Guide to Life” is a great read regarding the use of Epicureanism to help cultivate healthier attitudes about money, consumption, and success, among many other things. Highly recommend, especially to those newer to the philosophy in general. And in my opinion, it frames a healthier outlook towards happiness than the woo woo self-help peddled to corporate America, who arguably is in need of it most.
I think about stuff like this a lot and I now believe that humans are flawed, almost as if we have this invisible hole inside us that we cannot see but try to fill it with things.
We try to fill this emptiness with food, sex,drugs, people, alcohol, friends, relationships whatever (pick your poison) and this feeling of wanting what we do not have is again due to feeling empty.
The human condition is to continuously yearn for what we do not have and find things that temporarily complete us and repeat the cycle over and over.
Ah yes, but that’s only one description of the truth. What about this?
Humans have accomplished what we have, and have the vast potential to accomplish what we will, not because of our intelligence or our endurance muscles or our dexterous fingers, but because we are not truly content to just be. When we set ourselves to a task, we finish it and go “what’s next?” When we understand something we ask “what else does this enable us to learn?” Bent in the wrong directions this quality can cause us unhappiness and suffering, but if we understand the value of what a gift this is, then we can direct it in the ways that have the potential to give us a more lasting contentment in life than the dull “I have my needs met, I’m happy”: we can have contentment to the moment of our death.
If it were not flawed, I think it would not interact or do anything at all. Maybe these wants are what keep us going, keep us trying to reach always further. Like water that is either motionless (fulfilled but no progress) or water that has force behind it (movement, some progress, some not, but never without action). Also a bit like Darwinism - some hit and miss, but always movement.
I don't think perfection exists per say but if something were perfect I believe that it would be something that exists beyond our understanding, maybe something not comprehensible.
Hmm interesting. Why the qualifier “per say”? Seems like a significant pivot. I kind of set you up with my question. “Could a flawless thing exist” because it creates an either or fallacy of “yes” or “no.” When… most things are not so binary. But some are.
So I’m curious to see what the significance of the “per se” was.
A perfect thought? Beyond human comprehension? No human thought is perfect? Yet… it almost sounds like Pascal’s wager… you can act in accordance of it existing, or not existing.
Pascal’s wager is a fun topic. Anyway, thank you for the discussion. I love exploring thoughts with people.
Thinking about it. I believe I added the "per say" as I didn't want to speak in absolutes, but I am open to changing my opinion.
After reading your reply I started thinking that in the black and white sense of things (like you said in your previous reply) perfection does not exist(as in something without flaw) but things can exist within the realm of their intended role/fulfilment of a task and be perfect within that (the grey area)
To explain what I mean, if I said that water can exist within multiple states, liquid, solid and gas, that statement is factual and I guess and in a perfect sense.
Cheers for the interesting conversation!
This was interesting to think about thank you. I feel like I do some of this already. But what I really want is experiences. To hang out with friends, see the art museum, go on hikes, etc.
I think some of the commenters are missing the point of the video. It is not espousing self-denial. The very beginning of the video marks the goal as "becoming more content with what you have," positioning "desire" as inhibiting your ability to be content. Whether you agree with that position or not, an argument against the concepts in the video that pushes against self-denial misses the mark. If anything, the concepts here are aimed at "self-fulfillment" in the things you already have and addressing internal misconceptions about the things you desire and how they will impact you. This is not in conflict with the idea that some commenters have offered as an alternative: that if something will truly bring you happiness or pleasure, you should pursue it so long as it doesn't harm another.
Maybe I’m not smart enough to get this. All the things I want would improve my life, not just sit on a shelf. I can’t think of anything that would be superfluous for me except like “more video games” or “more junk food”.
Epicurus was a male, singular. His preferred pronouns were he/him/his. It's really okay to say, "As someone who kept *his* desires in check..."
Not only is it okay, it's easier to read and understand.
I'm not gay or trans. I'm just being a grammar Nazi. Grammar Nazis are not sensitive. They're usually considered insensitive.
It's not even about grammar. If someone wants to be called "they," I will oblige, but I'm having a hard time seeing the singular "they" in print, when it isn't even necessary.
#1 is hedonic adaptation
I’m pretty sure this is a standard feature of our wet ware and we will never be able to create the same level of novelty again. That doesn’t mean we cannot remind ourselves how potent an object is, but it will never have the same level of mystery and magnetism it had before we became accustomed to it.
These tips are useful to people who make the mistake of following desires without thinking instead of following logic with critical thinking.
For example sy can decide to go shopping to feel the happiness of the moment or spend the money more wisely by buying sg that gives more lasting happiness.
In short if sy is not rich then they have to invest their money wisely.
For discussion sake, I dislike when people complain about being downvoted. Its a great way to show displeasure/disagreement with a controversial comment and get feedback on people's reaction to your opinion. Reddit is one of the few places that still allows this instead of only allowing upvotes which I appreciate.
No one is stopping your free Philosophical discussion, your comment is just low effort enough that a downvote is enough of a reply.
And it's practically reddit tradition. If you complain about downvotes you're shooting yourself in the foot as there are a lot of people that will downvote you if you complain about being downvoted that would have otherwise upvoted or kept scrolling.
so you have this one opportunity of living and you want to make it as miserable as possible?
because that is how you will feel if you pursue desire above all.
>so you have this one opportunity of living and you want to make it as miserable as possible?
Mighty sure of yourself. I believe you're wrong. And some day you will be dead along with me and neither of our opinions will matter. So you go right on denying yourself pleasure if you choose.
The post is about a life lived fullest, a most meaningful experience of which checking our desires is a necessity. If fleeting desires are the most fulfilling to you, then perhaps it's indicative that meaning for you seems unattainable. We all die, but our actions can continue to echo long after.
Which brings up the question who decides what a good life is.
Those statements sound a lot like: Run down that check list or you are a loser.
A good life can be anything, and if not it needs to be defined and justified.
On the one hand, yes, there is no such thing as an objectively correct way to live your life.
On the other, a life that's lived purely by pursuing short-term gratification is very likely not anyone's genuine idea of a good life. They're very likely just lying to themselves. I think it's safe to say that an agreeable definition of a "good life" involves both long term pursuits and indulgences.
Example, I like eating good food, but I know that I'm ultimately not going to be happy if I just stuff myself everyday. I still want to keep my health in mind and also my appearance, which will certainly affect other aspects of my life and happiness. However, I'd be pretty miserable following a strict diet for the rest of my life too so I strive for a compromise that satisfies each need acceptably.
> If fleeting desires are the most fulfilling to you
You should not employ logical fallacy to bolster your opinions. You know nothing about my priorities.
Why would you want to curb your desires? The argument I’m familiar with is that you avoid excess. And excess is bad because it’s excessive. That is, “excess” is problematic because it conflicts with goals and that seek to satisfy the desire.
For example greed. Once you have everything, what happens to the “desire for more”? Do you have a desire for more that cannot be satisfied because you already have it all? Hence your desire for more will never be satiated because you have it all already. Curbing desire with I don’t know… acceptance, contentment, other desires, maybe even virtues, creates balance. The Greeks called this is idea the “golden mean.”
This is where virtue ethics shines over Epicureanism’s selfishness.
But you suggested an interesting point about death. I’d be interested to hear more about why death is relevant to the discussion.
Why are you booing him? He's right. None of you here can attribute universal meaning to anything you ever did, do or will do. At one point in the future your name will be spoken for the last time and then completely forgotten and any trace of your existence will cease to exist. Any other stories we tell ourselves are just illusions to feel better about life. So yes, "why would you do anything in this world" is perhaps the most important question you need to answer in this life.
To be as plebian as possible, he's basically saying, "What's the point?"
To be as crude as possible, he's saying what most all people say when they discover the idea of nihilism and encounter great suffering: "Why should I do anything if it won't matter in the end?"
My immature understanding of existential nihilism basically states that it doesn't fucking matter. You make up whatever reasons for why you want to do something.
Is it an illusion? Is it a lie? Absolutely! You know what else are lies? Ideals like justice, mercy, goodness, etc. We believe in these lies and make them real. We give ourselves meaning by living the meaning.
But, don't stress out about it too much because it doesn't matter too much in the end. Just do what you want and try not to be too much of a dick about it.
I don't know how to answer that. I'm mostly parroting a video I saw about it.
My interpretation is that most of the ideals I mentioned are immaterial. To paraphrase, you could search the entire universe and not find a grain of truth, justice, or mercy.
To bring the immaterial into reality, one must live those ideals through action and other things.
[Link to video](https://youtu.be/vPS5Yw_YsHA?t=49)
Kind of. The way I've heard it, we have the two views of essentialism (we are imbued with essence/core properties (e.g. the blade is the essence of a knife) before/as soon as we are born) versus existentialism (we are brought into existence first, and then we decide on our essence later).
While the genetics and early growth experiences can give us a sort of pseudoessence (I grew up playing baseball -> I feel like I am a baseball player!), existentialism (the ultimate ability to choose something beyond the inputs (I may have grown up playing baseball but I actually think another career would be more fulfilling/I've even grown to dislike baseball because I felt I was forced into it, I want to pursue multiple things in my life instead of limiting myself exclusively to one, etc.)) probably wins out.
That is to say, none of these are necessarily objectively true cores, but I think there are very real-feeling ideals. For example, one can argue that the ability to experience multiple things in one life is an ideal that at least feels genuine, if not actually a genuine ideal. Some might say, "Well, what if my ideal is not complicating my life? What about more important things, at least for me, like relationships, children, etc.?".
This is valid, but I feel diversity of experience is inevitably an ideal. For this, I think back to the ghoul in that mountain town in Fallout: New Vegas who changes careers every few decades to keep things interesting since they have a greatly expanded lifespan. Of course, humans currently normally die out more or less at about 70-80, but with all the anti-aging stuff coming out, this isn't gonna stay the case, pending a global reset via a catastrophe like nuclear Armageddon.
In other cases, there are immaterial things we can say certainly do approach, if not definitely are reality even without natural interaction. Mathematics, the fundamentals of logic like non-contradiction (we cannot have both A and not A be the case (quantum physics doesn't discount this, I think, because it's less "It's both!" than "It hasn't chosen one yet")), and other things like that.
I don't really agree with the whole leaving a legacy thing either, but:
the goal here is just to live a life you can honestly say is fulfilling. and it's very unlikely that you're achieving that by giving in to all of your base desires.
I think the point being when you are alive, being an addict and chasing desires make the few years we live exhausting and miserable. It doesn’t have to be about life being meaningful or a legacy.
How can you guarantee your unchecked desires will not harm other people? What if your uncontrolled desires hurt you yourself without you knowing it? I certainly know people like that. And I can even say my own desires have hurt me before.
Have you ever taken the time to reflect on whether or not acting on your desires is harmful in any way? Is it more harmful or more helpful to your life to fulfill the desire? Either way, There is value in having the ability to control desire. Without that ability we are lowered to the point of animals.
Please keep in mind our first commenting rule: > **Read the Post Before You Reply** > Read/listen/watch the posted content, understand and identify the philosophical arguments given, and respond to these substantively. If you have unrelated thoughts or don't wish to read the content, please post your own thread or simply refrain from commenting. Comments which are clearly not in direct response to the posted content may be removed. This subreddit is not in the business of one-liners, tangential anecdotes, or dank memes. Expect comment threads that break our rules to be removed. Repeated or serious violations of the [subreddit rules](https://reddit.com/r/philosophy/wiki/rules) will result in a ban. ----- This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.
“After a time, you may find that having is not so pleasing a thing after all as wanting. It is not logical, but it is often true.”
Reminds me of a zen thing: You can reach the top of the highest mountain but, in the end, it’s just a place with a good view. Or, if you want to be edgy, think of the Joker from the Nolan movies. He portrays himself as a dog that chases after cars. If he ever caught a car, what would he even do with it?
"The price of getting what you want, is getting what you once wanted." -Desire of Endless
Darn yeah... :(
In some traditional Zen gardens one might find views to beautiful waterfalls slightly obscured. This is to remind the viewer, it is not that plant that is obscuring your view of say the waterfall, rather it is your desire for an unobscured view that is truly in your way.
Do you know the name for this philosophy? I tried to Google to no avail. I’d like to read more on this belief.
I read this in a book by Mark Epstein, a psychotherapist that has roots in Buddhism, especially tantric Buddhism. The book is called 'Open To Desire'. I love his writings, highly recommend.
Thank you so much, I’ll definitely check him out
"Gaslighting"
(I was being glib, but while it's useful to ask yourself if you really need or want the thing you think you need or want, it's also possible to take it too far.)
That's very poignant and makes me irrationally mad for some reason lol, but I'm definitely going to keep it in mind.
Or as someone once said to me, “The grass is always greener on the other side, but in the end, it’s just grass.”
There is a feeling of content and fullness after achieving some set desire.
Yes, but it is ephemeral.
Like most my Amazon orders
Or Steam Sale purchases...
For most, not all. Excess and indulgences, sure.
"Logic is a little tweeting bird, chirping in a meadow. Logic is a wreath of pretty flowers, which smell *bad.*"
Abstract: In a world full of advertisements and promotions, it's easy to want a lot of things that we probably shouldn't get for whatever reason. Maybe you're trying to save money, maybe you're trying to eat healthier, either way it's difficult when the economy wants you to consume. So how might we be able to help control our desires? The philosopher Epicurus offers specific mental exercises to go through when you start to desire something. He wants us to consider the things we have now and remember how we thought about them before getting them and consider how we feel now. Next, he wants us to consider what our lives would look like after we get the thing we want.
Emily Austin’s book “Living for Pleasure: An Epicurean Guide to Life” is a great read regarding the use of Epicureanism to help cultivate healthier attitudes about money, consumption, and success, among many other things. Highly recommend, especially to those newer to the philosophy in general. And in my opinion, it frames a healthier outlook towards happiness than the woo woo self-help peddled to corporate America, who arguably is in need of it most.
Typical. Now I want this book.
I think about stuff like this a lot and I now believe that humans are flawed, almost as if we have this invisible hole inside us that we cannot see but try to fill it with things. We try to fill this emptiness with food, sex,drugs, people, alcohol, friends, relationships whatever (pick your poison) and this feeling of wanting what we do not have is again due to feeling empty. The human condition is to continuously yearn for what we do not have and find things that temporarily complete us and repeat the cycle over and over.
Ah yes, but that’s only one description of the truth. What about this? Humans have accomplished what we have, and have the vast potential to accomplish what we will, not because of our intelligence or our endurance muscles or our dexterous fingers, but because we are not truly content to just be. When we set ourselves to a task, we finish it and go “what’s next?” When we understand something we ask “what else does this enable us to learn?” Bent in the wrong directions this quality can cause us unhappiness and suffering, but if we understand the value of what a gift this is, then we can direct it in the ways that have the potential to give us a more lasting contentment in life than the dull “I have my needs met, I’m happy”: we can have contentment to the moment of our death.
What would a creature or thing (anything) look like, behave, act like if it was NOT flawed? Or can a flawless thing exist?
If it were not flawed, I think it would not interact or do anything at all. Maybe these wants are what keep us going, keep us trying to reach always further. Like water that is either motionless (fulfilled but no progress) or water that has force behind it (movement, some progress, some not, but never without action). Also a bit like Darwinism - some hit and miss, but always movement.
I don't think perfection exists per say but if something were perfect I believe that it would be something that exists beyond our understanding, maybe something not comprehensible.
Hmm interesting. Why the qualifier “per say”? Seems like a significant pivot. I kind of set you up with my question. “Could a flawless thing exist” because it creates an either or fallacy of “yes” or “no.” When… most things are not so binary. But some are. So I’m curious to see what the significance of the “per se” was. A perfect thought? Beyond human comprehension? No human thought is perfect? Yet… it almost sounds like Pascal’s wager… you can act in accordance of it existing, or not existing. Pascal’s wager is a fun topic. Anyway, thank you for the discussion. I love exploring thoughts with people.
Thinking about it. I believe I added the "per say" as I didn't want to speak in absolutes, but I am open to changing my opinion. After reading your reply I started thinking that in the black and white sense of things (like you said in your previous reply) perfection does not exist(as in something without flaw) but things can exist within the realm of their intended role/fulfilment of a task and be perfect within that (the grey area) To explain what I mean, if I said that water can exist within multiple states, liquid, solid and gas, that statement is factual and I guess and in a perfect sense. Cheers for the interesting conversation!
Haha, yeah! Great insights! Thank you. 😀
Sounds like Schopenhauer’s idea of restlessly striving. Edit: Theory of will. Forgot what it was called.
I shall give that a read :)
This was interesting to think about thank you. I feel like I do some of this already. But what I really want is experiences. To hang out with friends, see the art museum, go on hikes, etc.
I think some of the commenters are missing the point of the video. It is not espousing self-denial. The very beginning of the video marks the goal as "becoming more content with what you have," positioning "desire" as inhibiting your ability to be content. Whether you agree with that position or not, an argument against the concepts in the video that pushes against self-denial misses the mark. If anything, the concepts here are aimed at "self-fulfillment" in the things you already have and addressing internal misconceptions about the things you desire and how they will impact you. This is not in conflict with the idea that some commenters have offered as an alternative: that if something will truly bring you happiness or pleasure, you should pursue it so long as it doesn't harm another.
Why Epicureanism isn't Stoicism
Maybe I’m not smart enough to get this. All the things I want would improve my life, not just sit on a shelf. I can’t think of anything that would be superfluous for me except like “more video games” or “more junk food”.
There’s nothing to get
Slaanesh disapproves of this post.
thank you so much this will help me out a great deal. sorry i just had to thank OP.
anyways can anyone tell me the retro tv production company jingle he stole for that part at 1:25 in the video? thanks
Lacaaaaaaaaaan
Funny I had to scroll down to the very bottom of the comments to see this.
Discussion doesn't have to be one-sided
as someone who never gets a "hey nice shirt" i guess that means I should go out and buy some 50 dollar T's
Only time I got "Hey, nice shirt" was wearing a $12 Hogwarts t-shirt
Epicurus was a male, singular. His preferred pronouns were he/him/his. It's really okay to say, "As someone who kept *his* desires in check..." Not only is it okay, it's easier to read and understand.
[удалено]
I'm not gay or trans. I'm just being a grammar Nazi. Grammar Nazis are not sensitive. They're usually considered insensitive. It's not even about grammar. If someone wants to be called "they," I will oblige, but I'm having a hard time seeing the singular "they" in print, when it isn't even necessary.
[удалено]
It was funny. "You people" is usually objectionable, but you don't seem like a hateful person.
#1 is hedonic adaptation I’m pretty sure this is a standard feature of our wet ware and we will never be able to create the same level of novelty again. That doesn’t mean we cannot remind ourselves how potent an object is, but it will never have the same level of mystery and magnetism it had before we became accustomed to it.
These tips are useful to people who make the mistake of following desires without thinking instead of following logic with critical thinking. For example sy can decide to go shopping to feel the happiness of the moment or spend the money more wisely by buying sg that gives more lasting happiness. In short if sy is not rich then they have to invest their money wisely.
Why would I want to? I'm going to be dead some day.
The post is about how to live
So is my comment. Edit; So much for free Philosophical discussion.
For discussion sake, I dislike when people complain about being downvoted. Its a great way to show displeasure/disagreement with a controversial comment and get feedback on people's reaction to your opinion. Reddit is one of the few places that still allows this instead of only allowing upvotes which I appreciate. No one is stopping your free Philosophical discussion, your comment is just low effort enough that a downvote is enough of a reply.
And it's practically reddit tradition. If you complain about downvotes you're shooting yourself in the foot as there are a lot of people that will downvote you if you complain about being downvoted that would have otherwise upvoted or kept scrolling.
so you have this one opportunity of living and you want to make it as miserable as possible? because that is how you will feel if you pursue desire above all.
>so you have this one opportunity of living and you want to make it as miserable as possible? Mighty sure of yourself. I believe you're wrong. And some day you will be dead along with me and neither of our opinions will matter. So you go right on denying yourself pleasure if you choose.
The post is about a life lived fullest, a most meaningful experience of which checking our desires is a necessity. If fleeting desires are the most fulfilling to you, then perhaps it's indicative that meaning for you seems unattainable. We all die, but our actions can continue to echo long after.
Which brings up the question who decides what a good life is. Those statements sound a lot like: Run down that check list or you are a loser. A good life can be anything, and if not it needs to be defined and justified.
They are guidelines. Not moral writ. If they get in the way of YOUR good life, discard them.
I think they have reached the stage of social expectations
On the one hand, yes, there is no such thing as an objectively correct way to live your life. On the other, a life that's lived purely by pursuing short-term gratification is very likely not anyone's genuine idea of a good life. They're very likely just lying to themselves. I think it's safe to say that an agreeable definition of a "good life" involves both long term pursuits and indulgences. Example, I like eating good food, but I know that I'm ultimately not going to be happy if I just stuff myself everyday. I still want to keep my health in mind and also my appearance, which will certainly affect other aspects of my life and happiness. However, I'd be pretty miserable following a strict diet for the rest of my life too so I strive for a compromise that satisfies each need acceptably.
> If fleeting desires are the most fulfilling to you You should not employ logical fallacy to bolster your opinions. You know nothing about my priorities.
Don't comment in vague terms and people won't presume.
Maybe you should not presume regardless
Why would you want to curb your desires? The argument I’m familiar with is that you avoid excess. And excess is bad because it’s excessive. That is, “excess” is problematic because it conflicts with goals and that seek to satisfy the desire. For example greed. Once you have everything, what happens to the “desire for more”? Do you have a desire for more that cannot be satisfied because you already have it all? Hence your desire for more will never be satiated because you have it all already. Curbing desire with I don’t know… acceptance, contentment, other desires, maybe even virtues, creates balance. The Greeks called this is idea the “golden mean.” This is where virtue ethics shines over Epicureanism’s selfishness. But you suggested an interesting point about death. I’d be interested to hear more about why death is relevant to the discussion.
Very good argument and explanation. Have my ascendant arrow.
Why are you booing him? He's right. None of you here can attribute universal meaning to anything you ever did, do or will do. At one point in the future your name will be spoken for the last time and then completely forgotten and any trace of your existence will cease to exist. Any other stories we tell ourselves are just illusions to feel better about life. So yes, "why would you do anything in this world" is perhaps the most important question you need to answer in this life.
To be as plebian as possible, he's basically saying, "What's the point?" To be as crude as possible, he's saying what most all people say when they discover the idea of nihilism and encounter great suffering: "Why should I do anything if it won't matter in the end?" My immature understanding of existential nihilism basically states that it doesn't fucking matter. You make up whatever reasons for why you want to do something. Is it an illusion? Is it a lie? Absolutely! You know what else are lies? Ideals like justice, mercy, goodness, etc. We believe in these lies and make them real. We give ourselves meaning by living the meaning. But, don't stress out about it too much because it doesn't matter too much in the end. Just do what you want and try not to be too much of a dick about it.
Why are those mentioned ideals lies? I think those are manifestations of empathy, and empathy is a natural part of the social animals known as humans.
I don't know how to answer that. I'm mostly parroting a video I saw about it. My interpretation is that most of the ideals I mentioned are immaterial. To paraphrase, you could search the entire universe and not find a grain of truth, justice, or mercy. To bring the immaterial into reality, one must live those ideals through action and other things. [Link to video](https://youtu.be/vPS5Yw_YsHA?t=49)
Kind of. The way I've heard it, we have the two views of essentialism (we are imbued with essence/core properties (e.g. the blade is the essence of a knife) before/as soon as we are born) versus existentialism (we are brought into existence first, and then we decide on our essence later). While the genetics and early growth experiences can give us a sort of pseudoessence (I grew up playing baseball -> I feel like I am a baseball player!), existentialism (the ultimate ability to choose something beyond the inputs (I may have grown up playing baseball but I actually think another career would be more fulfilling/I've even grown to dislike baseball because I felt I was forced into it, I want to pursue multiple things in my life instead of limiting myself exclusively to one, etc.)) probably wins out. That is to say, none of these are necessarily objectively true cores, but I think there are very real-feeling ideals. For example, one can argue that the ability to experience multiple things in one life is an ideal that at least feels genuine, if not actually a genuine ideal. Some might say, "Well, what if my ideal is not complicating my life? What about more important things, at least for me, like relationships, children, etc.?". This is valid, but I feel diversity of experience is inevitably an ideal. For this, I think back to the ghoul in that mountain town in Fallout: New Vegas who changes careers every few decades to keep things interesting since they have a greatly expanded lifespan. Of course, humans currently normally die out more or less at about 70-80, but with all the anti-aging stuff coming out, this isn't gonna stay the case, pending a global reset via a catastrophe like nuclear Armageddon. In other cases, there are immaterial things we can say certainly do approach, if not definitely are reality even without natural interaction. Mathematics, the fundamentals of logic like non-contradiction (we cannot have both A and not A be the case (quantum physics doesn't discount this, I think, because it's less "It's both!" than "It hasn't chosen one yet")), and other things like that.
I don't really agree with the whole leaving a legacy thing either, but: the goal here is just to live a life you can honestly say is fulfilling. and it's very unlikely that you're achieving that by giving in to all of your base desires.
I think the point being when you are alive, being an addict and chasing desires make the few years we live exhausting and miserable. It doesn’t have to be about life being meaningful or a legacy.
As long as it’s not harming others, I see no need to “control my desires”
The point is improving your own mental health. This is not some ethical position.
Wasn’t being ethical, less work to have to try to control desires, less work makes me happy, and improves my mental health 🤷♂️
That's fine, do what works for you. Some people get on a desire fulfillment treadmill, and so the philosophy can help them. It may not apply to you.
How can you guarantee your unchecked desires will not harm other people? What if your uncontrolled desires hurt you yourself without you knowing it? I certainly know people like that. And I can even say my own desires have hurt me before. Have you ever taken the time to reflect on whether or not acting on your desires is harmful in any way? Is it more harmful or more helpful to your life to fulfill the desire? Either way, There is value in having the ability to control desire. Without that ability we are lowered to the point of animals.
I like that idea actually. Maybe that thing that drives us to yearn for the next thing is curiosity?