Hedoism

literally doesnt matter

...

gay penis vaginal warfare

sex digging vagina vacuum

s-sauce?

A lot of those pleasures you seek will not be available or pleasurable to you once you're age 35+.

A man should spend his youth preparing for those years, since that is when you will be spending the majority of your life.

Trying desperately to have sex with as many girls that will, for example, is not a good setup for your future. It also makes things worse for everyone, by devaluing the women you have sex with.

Marrying a 17 year old virgin and having sons with her, on the other hand, is bound to give you a good future, considering you'll have over 15 grandsons by the time you're an old man.

most seventeen year olds are insufferable dude

...

All women are in this society. The point is to have a NationaI Socialist revolution that will set society's standards and use pressure to make sure women don't fall out of line.

...

Are you an autistic permavirgin by any chance?

My Dad did this and he has never been a very happy man. Except she was 15 and he was 16 when they met and they married at 16 and 17 and had me.

Those damn happy people are trying to put psychoanalysts out of business!

I am a virgin, but it's wrong of you to judge my worth and opinions as a human based on my sexual hookup-culture worth.

I'm not saying that it's a 100% guarantee to happiness. It's just the best option there is for this specific situation.

...

...

No but it's a good place to start judging you on your views towards women

It is, however, right to disregard your opinion as to what it takes for a person to be happy.

How do you know that?

Do you think that the men that do participate in hookup culture and get sex are better people that deserve it and have better opinions on women's role in society? Is it just?

...

...

Not him but hookup culture is the clubbing, one night stand sort of stuff.

nobody really "deserves" sex or any form of affection from others. That's completely up to other people.
not necessarily but they would have better opinions on women in general seeing as how they've actually interacted with them intimately
I wouldn't trust the supreme gentleman to tell me what all woman are like because he was a permavirgin who didn't actually KNOW anyone except his family.
in what way? If you're asking if it's just for men who put themselves out there and end up finding someone to have a good time with/get a relationship with then yes. I mean if you actually go out and try to meet women chances are you'll probably meet someone you like eventually.don't give me any bullshit about how you're just too beta and nice.

No, because it's degenerate. Both communism and libertarianism are fundamentally hedonistic in nature though, so I don't see why this board would be against it.

and he paints a picture where there's only neethood and one night stands and no relationships or love at all
again

gib sauce goddamnit

sauce for what? your autism? it's your mother

OP picture
it's doing things to me

The picture in the OP.

Oh well. If everyone believes that all the decisions women make are great and that they're 100% justified, then our living standards are doomed. I guess this is the way the world is going, and with Hitler's defeat, there's probably no force out there willing to stop it.

Seeing as how they actually know some women, yes.

*For Europeans, that is.

Of course, other countries and races will have no problem with instigating standards for their own women. As always, white men lose.

when did I say this?
lmao

There is one force left to stop it.

People are all retarded, type of genitals does not matter.

...

...

I got it from Holla Forums

Atleast you are honest about your ideals, why are you even here tho?

Shit

This is implying that the only way for humans to live is to live through hookup culture, where men have to go through the ritual trying to make themselves appealing to women, which is just a race towards the bottom and back to barbarity.

Women do not make good choices.

Not him but I am only here because Holla Forums behaves too much like a cult to actually discuss anything on.

...

did you ever consider that you might be gay?

...

no this is me pointing out that affection, sex, and love requires the other person to actually feel those things. you could easily have the reverse where females have to make themselves appeal to men and it would still be true.

A good thread shitted up by you faggots replying to the nazi autist.

Was going to make a reply but fuck that.

By behaving like prostitutes. It is a race to the lowest common denominator.

Does anyone want to make some lampshades? I can't stand jews but I love lamps.

considering you're a virgin with no friends I don't blame you for not knowing that clubbing and "hookup culture" isn't actually the only way to meet women.

whats the semen demons name at least?

I'm not that the Nazi user.

I also like soap.

Yes, and you think going on a "date" is what causes that?

Humans can adapt. Marrying the neighbor you've known from a child is usually the best way.

They don't need to. Too many men (mostly nonwhite) are horny as fuck and will fuck anything if they can get their hands on it. Women could be a lot more attractive than they are right now, and they could work hell of a lot more on their personalities, but they don't need to, because men will desperately pursue them anyway.

So you get the sweatpants and tanktop wearing woman with no personality and no traits that make her desirable other than her vagina being on "Tinder" getting all these men desperately looking to fuck her.

This is the reality of the world we live in.

getting to know someone can yes
So basically you're saying that people can settle for whatever is available? yes but the world isn't closed off towns and villages anymore user

How do you know this? how do you know that just because a woman wears sweatpants and tank tops (lel?) she has no personality or desirable traits?

I think it's retarded to let your life to be driven by pleasure, because pleasure=/=happiness

The best examples of people that experience high degrees of pleasure are promiscuous and drug addicts, and none of them end up being happy

Nope, but don't try and force it on me.

Also, hedonism*

Hey autism-nazi. How old are you? Are you a wizard yet, or just a nerdy butthurt teenager?

Sorry fellow nihilist comrade, but I'm going to have to blow you the fuck out over hedonism as an ethical position.

Hedonism is the oldest and thus the most pleb-tier ethical position in existence, first of all. Hedonism was advocated by the pre-Socratics before Socrates and Socrates: Plato Edition™ came around and BTFO hedonism with their more refined conceptualizations of justice and the Good. I personally am more partial however to these sentiments of Ancient Greek philosophy's views on The Good Life (eudaimonia) as reconceptualized by the Stoics. Crates of Mallus somewhat famously, if I remember correctly, basically destroyed hedonism by arguing that it is utterly impossible for a hedonist to ever to attain the end-goal of their position, because the pursuit of pleasure itself requires going through great pains oftentimes or will lead to other pains. Schopenhauer, I think, further cashes out this criticism when he says that the default state of human beings is to be in pain insofar as we get bored if we have no stimuli.

But I don't give a shit about most of Schopenhauer's ideas, and the Stoics' end-goal is no less unattainable than the hedonists'/Epicureans', since the idea of humans being rational is just retarded on many levels, and appealing to Plato and Socrates' ethics is just an appeal to authority since I don't really agree with their ideas either. Nevertheless, I think that this provides a good jumping-off point.

I would further argue contra utilitarianism's reconceptualization of hedonism - a *scientific*, and very distastefully English, hedonism - that there is absolutely no reason to institute a hierarchy of pleasures that Mill introduced to Bentham's ideas. It is not clear to me that there is a difference in pleasure between sensory pleasures and intellectual pleasures as they could be viewed in a calculus - notwithstanding the fact that a calculus of pleasures is an absurdly quasi-scientific attempt at doing a scientific account of something that isn't measurable. But even so, we'd have to determine whether or not the intellectual end achieved resulted in a net amount of greater pleasure than the process, and if not, the utilitarian would consider the activity to be a failure from an ethical standpoint - which, once again, is absurd. Most great artists suffered greatly throughout their lives, often to little avail in life, often working out of a compulsion to create art rather than a desire for pleasure from the art. Yet their works are nevertheless considered to be valuable by all.

Nevertheless, it is clear to me that humans are not content to merely engage in pleasure in any event. Humans without fail go through great pains in life to achieve ends (babbies go through pains to learn to walk). If pleasure was the basis for an ethical position, we'd all be content to hook ourselves up to heroin machines, and this clearly isn't the case.

Yet, furthermore, I think in the end (being a nihilist) that any attempts at creating a systematized ethics or morality are doomed to fail. I am more in favor of a meta-ethical position like Nietzsche's or Stirner's, which brings me to my last point on hedonism: Hedonism isn't compatible with Stirner's ideas.

Bold claim, perhaps, but I think that the idea that the Unique One is subject purely to their own material interests and bodily needs/pleasures is a fundamental misunderstanding of Stirner's project. The Unique One is not some hitherto-unaccessible cognitive part of the brain, so much as a meta-psychological structure. Consciousness itself, perhaps. As such, the Unique One is not limited by the body's needs and desires, and this goes all the way up to the brain (which is a part of the body after all). Material interests and desires for pleasure come from the Self's preferences and wants, and the Self is NOT the Unique One. The Self is a proxy for talking about the Unique One, but the Unique One cannot be talked about directly and any attempts to do so will fail. The Self is a useful concept to some degree, but in the end it is also a spook, basically.

Nevertheless, I'm also not an egoist. I just think Stirner's ideas are the most practically useful for any attempts at making something resembling an ethics. Better a tyranny of the Self than a tyranny of the State.

Keep it simple for me cause my philosophy is babby tier but what better cause is there in life than happiness?

Freedom.

In the bottom end, though, freedom will give people like you and me happiness. So the conclusion is the same, relative happiness is the ultimate goal for everyone, no matter how you try to put an ethical exclamation mark to your point.

Kill the white oppressor

I disagree entirely.

We are most free when we attain absolute self-knowledge of ourselves as beings which form concepts of the world and are able to transcend immediate self-consciousness. This doesn't stop with happiness, and thus happiness isn't the end goal, but rather has to do with the Unique One being wholly unrestrained to express itself and to seize the noumena itself as its property.

Or, to put it in other terms: Philosophers historically conflated living well and being happy with being a philosopher. The Ancient Greek philosophers believed that happiness was the end goal of life, and that one is happiest when they are doing philosophy. Sure, you can maybe think of it as "happiness", or call it such, but if you really think that the great scientists, artists, and philosophers throughout history did what they did because they were seeking "happiness", or that they were happy or merely happy at having "done it" (done what?), then frankly I think you are thinking in extremely simple terms. The will towards a scientific discovery, or a great work of art (or a great political action, or a great love, if we're adding in Badiou's four truths), is not something that is limited to our own Self and its will towards happiness and self-preservation. It is more like a compulsion, something that often brings great misery to the artist/scientist/philosopher, but that they nonetheless cannot help but pursue. One finds themselves caught up in an unstoppable force that they themselves are merely a part of, and through which they discover their freedom as they, as the Unique One, transcend their Self through the Event.

I'm not speaking in abstract terms either. I find this compulsion to create art, to engage in political struggles, to make scientific discoveries, to love, is a very real psychological condition. I think reducing it to mere happiness is almost insulting.

Or, in other other words: I think it is much more useful to think of the end goal not as happiness, but as satisfaction, as Hegel put it.

THIS, you can not be a leftist unless you want to spill white blood

I kinda feel like this is splitting hairs though I get what you mean.

I really don't think hedonism in the non parody sense means people want to be on opium all day like you mentioned.

>>>Holla Forums
please veil your b8 better next time

21