4 ms·
> I'm not arguing that we should completely give ourselves over to our base urges, but acknowledging they exist, that everyone has them, and that they can be a
by javert 11y ago
> I'm not arguing that we should completely give ourselves over to our base urges, but acknowledging they exist, that everyone has them, and that they can be a wonderful thing would be a great start.
As soon as you say something like this, you concede the argument.
You are equating human happiness with "giving in to base urges," which couldn't be further from the truth.
- blueflow 11y agoPeople find happiness in very different things. And be more careful while using the term "truth" for something that only applies to you and other people similar to you.
- javert 11y agoI meant what I said. Nobody can experience happiness by giving in to whims and random urges without considering the long term. However, the good for a human being does consist in enjoying life and experiencing good emotion. So, this was a false dichotomy: > I'm not arguing that we should completely give ourselves over to our base urges, but acknowledging they exist, that everyone has them, and that they can be a wonderful thing would be a great start. To be specific, the options are not: deny pleasure on the one hand, or give in to short-term base urges on the other hand with no thought to the consequences. That is a false dichotomy.
- adevine 11y agoBy "base urges", I mean that quite literally, and not with a negative connotation. I mean the most fundamental of human needs: food, sex, emotional expression. I mean that we should take delight in a great meal, but not to the point that we overdose on food to the point where it's harmful and no longer pleasurable. Same thing goes for sex and emotional expression.
- david-given 11y agoMaslow's Hierarchy of Needs is useful to point at in this sort of conversation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow%27s_hierarchy_of_needs http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow%27s_hierarchy_of_needs