3 ms·
Then that would be another point in favor of actually exercising, if the pills don't hit enough of the same biological systems to mimic the anti-depressive effe
by philipkglass 9y ago
Then that would be another point in favor of actually exercising, if the pills don't hit enough of the same biological systems to mimic the anti-depressive effect. I'm not rejecting any benefits of exercise that can be empirically demonstrated. I just want to distinguish "X has historically been the best way to achieve Y" from "X is virtuous, and should not be neglected even if technical progress provides easier ways to achieve Y."
There is virtue in working hard to achieve good outcomes, but not in working harder than actually necessary to achieve those same outcomes. (If you want to do things a harder way than strictly necessary because it's a fun pastime for you, that's fine too. Then the experience itself rather than the end state is what you are seeking.)
- arnarbi 9y agoAh fair enough, I misunderstood. I agree doing things for the sole reason of being virtuous doesn't make sense. Although I do think the origin of "virtue" is because some things had good general effects, but nobody was able to explain why or how. Of course the concept has been abused since then.
- edanm 9y agoSome societies found it virtuous to kill anyone not of the right race/religion. Some societies found/find it virtuous to genitally mutilate women. I'm not sure we can come up with a principled way to distinguish the "good" kind of virtuous from the "bad" kind of virtuous without just deciding by ourselves what is virtuous and what isn't, at least to some degree.
- costcopizza 9y agoYeah, but 'some' is different than most. It's pretty dang universal to feel "good" after putting in effort to achieve something.