Hedonism and society.

Is hedonism destructive to social development?

Discuss.

Is hedonism destructive to social development?

Discuss.

[Barzooka]

No, it's not destructive to social development because not only should you be able to do whatever makes you happy but by growing up and doing what makes you the happiest, it's going to attract people to you who have similar interests towards you. Assuming that hedonism is doing what makes you happy, if you're going to develop yourself by doing things you don't like to do then it's going to attract people who do the same thing and by then you'll be surrounded by people who do things you don't like to do and ultimately you will become destructive to yourself.

If you would like to become more philosophical however then let's say that something I enjoy doing is drugs (just an example given) and that I focus on my own happiness by taking drugs. Now I think it would be safe to assume that this would attract other people towards me who like to partake on recreational drug usage. Now would this be ultimately destructive towards myself? Yes, because harming your body by abusing substances is bad, therefore making this not only socially destructive but physically destructive as well. Now, let's say I like to draw and paint other than doing drugs (just another example given). I'm pretty sure that artists attract the attention of other artists and I've always found that creating art (of any kind really) is definitely a conversation starter and a good means of obtaining recognition and friendship. My point being is that this whole thing really depends on how you're practising hedonism.

If you grew up doing something you like, such as gardening for example, then you're going to make yourself happier and more knowledgeable on the subject which will make you be able to better relatable to people who are into said subject. Like if you grew up liking botany but got into culinary instead then you're not going to be able to converse about botany because you won't know anything about it.

---------- Post added at 09:17 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:06 PM ----------

Everyone lives their lives totally different from each other and we all grew up in our own ways being taught to look at the world differently from one another. So what I think could be wrong, someone else could think is right, and neither one of us would really be right or wrong, it just means we think and take things totally differently.

I feel like that eventually we become bored with the things that we have once loved to do and eventually move on to different things. I feel like that sometimes when I aim at happiness I am ultimately unsatisfied and instead do other things to keep myself occupied and sane. This whole time I wanted to be a computer technician but now that I'm actually taking college courses it's just insanely boring to me and I want to do something else, but should I partake in something that I think will make me happier? Or should I stick to something that bores me just to (maybe) achieve ultimate happiness later down the road of life?

Wow, this is actually a major paradox. I need to give myself some time to reflect upon this.

[Barzooka]

No, it's not destructive to social development because not only should you be able to do whatever makes you happy but by growing up and doing what makes you the happiest, it's going to attract people to you who have similar interests towards you. Assuming that hedonism is doing what makes you happy, if you're going to develop yourself by doing things you don't like to do then it's going to attract people who do the same thing and by then you'll be surrounded by people who do things you don't like to do and ultimately you will become destructive to yourself.

If you would like to become more philosophical however then let's say that something I enjoy doing is drugs (just an example given) and that I focus on my own happiness by taking drugs. Now I think it would be safe to assume that this would attract other people towards me who like to partake on recreational drug usage. Now would this be ultimately destructive towards myself? Yes, because harming your body by abusing substances is bad, therefore making this not only socially destructive but physically destructive as well. Now, let's say I like to draw and paint other than doing drugs (just another example given). I'm pretty sure that artists attract the attention of other artists and I've always found that creating art (of any kind really) is definitely a conversation starter and a good means of obtaining recognition and friendship. My point being is that this whole thing really depends on how you're practising hedonism.

If you grew up doing something you like, such as gardening for example, then you're going to make yourself happier and more knowledgeable on the subject which will make you be able to better relatable to people who are into said subject. Like if you grew up liking botany but got into culinary instead then you're not going to be able to converse about botany because you won't know anything about it.

---------- Post added at 09:17 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:06 PM ----------

Everyone lives their lives totally different from each other and we all grew up in our own ways being taught to look at the world differently from one another. So what I think could be wrong, someone else could think is right, and neither one of us would really be right or wrong, it just means we think and take things totally differently.

I feel like that eventually we become bored with the things that we have once loved to do and eventually move on to different things. I feel like that sometimes when I aim at happiness I am ultimately unsatisfied and instead do other things to keep myself occupied and sane. This whole time I wanted to be a computer technician but now that I'm actually taking college courses it's just insanely boring to me and I want to do something else, but should I partake in something that I think will make me happier? Or should I stick to something that bores me just to (maybe) achieve ultimate happiness later down the road of life?

Wow, this is actually a major paradox. I need to give myself some time to reflect upon this.

Yes its destructive, but only if it done in a way that enforces your will on others or the society without them saying ok or being aware, like if a group of adults want to all have an orgy then thats ok if they all agree.. all these things are ok imo, but there is a line drawn and its consent and.. as a anarchist.. A REAL ANARCHIST not shitty groups like antifa or anything who don't know what real anarchy is, real universal anarchy.. this is what i KNOW society needs to do to evolve is a positive way... what is written (below) people need to learn right from wrong.. they need to learn this.. an live in harmony with it.

Law of freedom.
Freedom and morality are directly proportional. As morality increases, freedom increases. As morality declines freedom declines. Another way of stating this law would be to say that the presence of truth and morality in the lives of the people of any given society is inversely proportional to the presence of tyranny and slavery in that society. If a particular man made law is in harmony with natural law, then it follows logically that it is redundant, since it is stating a truth that is inherent, pre-existing and self evident, Therefore it is both irrelevant and unnecessary. If a particular man made law is in opposition to natural law, then it follows logically that it is both false (incorrect) and immoral (harmful) or in other words wrong. Therefore it can not be legitimately binding upon anyone.

Natural law
Based upon principles and truth (inherent to creation) Harmonized with due to knowledge and understanding. Universal; exists and applies anywhere in the universe, eternal and immutable; exists and applies as long as the universe exists, and cannot be changed.
Mans law
Based upon dogmatic beliefs (constructs of the mind) complied with due to fear of punishment. Differs with location based upon the whim of the legislators (moral relativism) changes with time based upon the whim of legislators (moral relativism)

True freedom can never exist in a society that embraces moral relativism (the idea that there is no inherent and objective difference between right and wrong, so humanity may arbitrarily “create” or “decide” right and wrong for themselves.)

Morality: Right: correct, truth, harmony, actions based in no harm unless for self defence or protection. Wrong: Incorrect, not based in truth, immoral, actions based in harm of other beings.
Every harmful action that a human being is capable of taking is a form of theft. Some form of property is always being stolen when a wrong-doing is committed. Life is a form of property, Rights is a form of property and Freedom is a form of property.

Anarchy: from the Greek prefix an-(av-) “without; the absence of” and the Greek noun archon “master; ruler” anarchy does not mean “without rules it literally means “without rulers; without masters.”

True freedom includes infinite possibility, which, by definition, includes the possibility of chaos. This possibility must be embraced without fear if we are to be truly free. The fear of the possibility of chaos is the fear of freedom, that does not mean do not take precautions in life when necessary.

Yes its destructive, but only if it done in a way that enforces your will on others or the society without them saying ok or being aware, like if a group of adults want to all have an orgy then thats ok if they all agree.. all these things are ok imo, but there is a line drawn and its consent and.. as a anarchist.. A REAL ANARCHIST not shitty groups like antifa or anything who don't know what real anarchy is, real universal anarchy.. this is what i KNOW society needs to do to evolve is a positive way... what is written (below) people need to learn right from wrong.. they need to learn this.. an live in harmony with it.

Law of freedom.
Freedom and morality are directly proportional. As morality increases, freedom increases. As morality declines freedom declines. Another way of stating this law would be to say that the presence of truth and morality in the lives of the people of any given society is inversely proportional to the presence of tyranny and slavery in that society. If a particular man made law is in harmony with natural law, then it follows logically that it is redundant, since it is stating a truth that is inherent, pre-existing and self evident, Therefore it is both irrelevant and unnecessary. If a particular man made law is in opposition to natural law, then it follows logically that it is both false (incorrect) and immoral (harmful) or in other words wrong. Therefore it can not be legitimately binding upon anyone.

Natural law
Based upon principles and truth (inherent to creation) Harmonized with due to knowledge and understanding. Universal; exists and applies anywhere in the universe, eternal and immutable; exists and applies as long as the universe exists, and cannot be changed.
Mans law
Based upon dogmatic beliefs (constructs of the mind) complied with due to fear of punishment. Differs with location based upon the whim of the legislators (moral relativism) changes with time based upon the whim of legislators (moral relativism)

True freedom can never exist in a society that embraces moral relativism (the idea that there is no inherent and objective difference between right and wrong, so humanity may arbitrarily “create” or “decide” right and wrong for themselves.)

Morality: Right: correct, truth, harmony, actions based in no harm unless for self defence or protection. Wrong: Incorrect, not based in truth, immoral, actions based in harm of other beings.
Every harmful action that a human being is capable of taking is a form of theft. Some form of property is always being stolen when a wrong-doing is committed. Life is a form of property, Rights is a form of property and Freedom is a form of property.

Anarchy: from the Greek prefix an-(av-) “without; the absence of” and the Greek noun archon “master; ruler” anarchy does not mean “without rules it literally means “without rulers; without masters.”

True freedom includes infinite possibility, which, by definition, includes the possibility of chaos. This possibility must be embraced without fear if we are to be truly free. The fear of the possibility of chaos is the fear of freedom, that does not mean do not take precautions in life when necessary.