/philosophy/ - Philosophy

>>1127
Pleasure is in different to a good life. Pleasure is most often not within our direct control to influence and as such one should regard pleasures with indifference and only covet that which leads to a virtuous life.

>>1131
I'm undecided about that position but if one has that position one should probably also have the addendum that one should have pleasure enough that the body and mind remains healthy and doesn't become uncontrollable or depressed. For example, one should go to reasonable lengths to prevent one self from suffering extreme pain or extreme isolation unless one is deliberately testing oneself. I'm not sure how to properly define what a reasonable measure of pain and pleasure to make sure the body and mind remains healthy is though.

>>1133
I disagree that pleasure is a prerequisite for the mind to remain healthy. Health of the body is also beyond your control and thus is indifferent. You can take care of your body so that you do not want for the help of medicine but you cannot ensure beyond all measures that your body will be healthy.

If you want for nothing but that which is in your control then no amount of pleasure is necessary to live a good life.

>>1135
I think it may be possible to obtain the required amount of pleasure in life to have a healthy mind through simple satisfaction in doing good deeds and trying to perfect oneself but I do believe that people do require some amount of pleasure in life or else they will become depressed.

>>1136
I would not look for pleasure in doing a good deed. I would look at doing the deed as conforming with my nature and take pleasure in being in accord with nature.

I fundamentally disagree that one needs pleasure in order to not be depressed. Although we may not have the same sort of pleasure in mind.

>>1139
Obviously, one shouldn't do good deeds for the sake of obtaining happiness but I do think that a lot of the time that doing good deeds makes people obtain happiness.

While I don't think extreme elation such as from sex or drugs or music is required to maintain sanity I find it hard to believe people can maintain optimum sanity without any joy at all. Of course, the amount of happiness required to maintain sane probably varies with respect to person. Some people probably become depressed or extremely stressed out from very little pain or annoyance and others might be able to struggle on through an extreme amount of trials and tribulations.

Even if you do not think that pleasure is required for a healthy mind do you think that at least the reasonable absence of pain is required for sanity? Extreme amounts of stress really can cause depression and other problems.

Also, maybe you might think that pleasure is not required for adult life but I would argue that pleasure and play are an absolute necessity for the proper development of children and babies.

>>1142
It can. It doesn't have to. Yes, of course the ability differs from person to person.

No. Pain is not disagreeable and absence of it is not required for happiness. if a pain is lingering it can be ignored. If a pain is extreme you will probably die. If you're dead you can't feel anything.

Children aren't rational beings. philosophy isn't for children.

>>1145
And at what exact point in time does a child become a rational being and in need of philosophy? Clearly, rationality is a gradient and not black and white. And while children are not fully rational beings, neither are adults. If you believe yourself to be fully rational and immune to pain and depression you are dangerously arrogant.

>>1146
Infants and toddlers don't need philosophy. These are children. After puberty you are not a child. If you are classifying those people as "children" then we're talking about two different things. Rationality for a seven year old is not a gradient.

You don't know what I believe because you didn't ask. To assume what I think is a folly.