Self-Rejection, Self-Sacrifice, Self-Denial VS Egoism, Earthly Pleasures, Hedonism

[AB Caro]

Why are the “Self- “ stuff in the thread subject highly encouraged even in a secular environment, while the other 3 stuff are highly discouraged, even in a secular environment,

Very interesting questions, and I fear there is no satisfying answer.

I guess I will stick up for self-denial a little bit. Some kinds of pleasure are more satisfying than others, and to get to them may require discipline. Most ascetics would argue (I think) that their goal is not the elimination of pleasure, but rather a kind of pleasure that lasts -- that isn't dependent on material goods or other people's whims. So denying oneself SOME things is going to get more pleasure in the long run.

(I accidentally deleted my relevant quote here and can’t be bothered to put it back)


So if we assume there is no God and no fear of divine punishment, I guess we need SOMETHING to teach us to get along with each other. I wouldn't want to live in a society that had NO pressures or guilt or shame, standards or norms. 

But you're right that beyond these necessary guardrails for behavior, society does enforce its rules on us. Every group has its self-appointed conformity enforcers who tell us when we're being (in their eyes) unacceptable. And the things that they consider to be signs of success may not be what you and I want at all. 

We have to be careful here, because while society tells us to deny ourselves, it also determines in many ways what a hedonistic life would look like. That is, all of our ideas come into us through society, we are never detached from it, and this includes the ideas about what a free and hedonistic life would look like. 

Self-discipline through self-denial makes sense, I’m thinking of the research of the kids withholding the immediate gratification of 1 lollipop vs 2 lollipops (the actual treat doesn’t matter) for waiting patiently. And I’m assuming the “SOME things” to deny include alcohol, drugs, cigarettes, gambling, porn, maybe even junk food because of the proven researched harms in them.

As for the ascetics, is it even possible to be a secular (NEITHER spiritual NOR religious) ascetic? Because the pleasure most of them talk about is always something spiritual/religious in nature. Or if we stretch the definition of “spiritual” to something like “Mark Green’s Atheopaganism” which is just “awe” for natural occurences, now that makes sense.

Yes, I agree that there should definitely be universal morals, “these necessary guardrails for behavior” even in the absence of God/other divine agents such as no murder, theft, rape, corruption (in the broad sense), terrorism, these ones are of high seriousness, while in medium seriousness would be no cheating (in the broad sense), lying (except white lies), after all we need the right to be protected from danger. And that’s enough pressures, guilt, shame, standards or norms. It would be nice to not have the “cliques” of, for example, gender norms (sexism, homophobia, transphobia, cishetnormativity), racist stereotypes, socioeconomic class stereotypes, and all the “signs of success” and “conformity enforcers” attached with them, but at this point it’s just a utopian delusion because we are too obsessed with labels (tribalism?)

Also agree that no matter what, we will always live in a society, but there’s no harm in living a “free and hedonistic life”*The “harm” would be the harmful effects of “alcohol, drugs… junk food”, maybe even the opportunity costs of “self-discipline through self-denial” if they count as a net loss of pleasure that could have been experienced in a finite lifespan.

If our lives are finite and there are no afterlives, we should exercise our self-earned/self-given(?) rights to live a “free and hedonistic life” as much as possible in our lifespans (check my signature)