Hedonism Leads to Apathy (and Pacifism)

Canada Free Press ^ | 04/19/2008 | Yomin Postelnik

[Yomin Postelnik]

The world has seen many cultures rise and fall. The common thread among all, from the Ancient Romans and Greeks to others, is that prior to their fall they became selfish, gluttonous and apathetic. They adopted the feel good and do it now mentality that today’s secularists feel is an invention of their own.

Anyone who studies human nature should find it apparent that our Creator set up a system whereby gluttonous selfishness leads to apathy. It is therefore of no surprise that those who embody the “feel good, do it now” movement are so out of touch with the needs of the nation and of what constitutes a healthy society that they spend all of their time spinning and twisting the truth about those who oppose their insipid agenda. It is also of no surprise that in their quest to instill their tasteless and harmful doctrine, they politicize national security concerns and propagate the belief that inviting those who are sworn to the destruction of Western civilization to a big kumbaya will make them see the light, as opposed to emboldening them. After all, apathy does that to a person.

[arderkrag]

Oh, how cute. A slippery slope fallacy.

[laotzu]

[Yomin Postelnik]

You’d agree that there’s a difference between Libertarian and Libertine....

[Clint Williams]

Right. Everybody knows there is no such thing as a slippery slope. / sarc

[Yomin Postelnik]

:)

[yankeedame]

Anyone who studies human nature should find it apparent that our Creator set up a system whereby gluttonous selfishness leads to apathy....

And do not His human creations pray unto Him, "Lead us not into temptation"?

You know, I have never understood whence this idea that in order to be considered virtuous we must be a St. Jerome. For Pete's sake, Solomon was a king. David danced (among other things), the Good Samaritan clearly had money.

As with a lot of things, Shakespeare said it best: "Because thou art virtuous dost thou think there will be no more cake and ale?" Aye, and wine will run hot in the mouth, too.

[arderkrag]

Not much of one. The biggest diffrence is that Libertines (traditionally at least) believe that hedonism should be embraced. Libertarians tend to be apathetic one way or another. We believe hedonism should be allowed, though, and certainly not punished by the goverment.

[Clint N. Suhks]

Excellent article.

This should be seared in every Conservative’s mind.

[qam1]

The world has seen many cultures rise and fall. The common thread among all, from the Ancient Romans and Greeks to others, is that prior to their fall they became selfish, gluttonous and apathetic.

I think the author should study a little more history before spouting such nonsense

[Clint N. Suhks]

Articles like these are Liberaltarian magnets.

Have fun dealing with the potheads.

[JSDude1]

As Solomon finally came to conclude, non of the things of this world will satisfy (women, money, power, food, ect) which he finally wrote in ecclesiastes and lamentations. THe only thing that will is The Lord, God.

[arderkrag]

Same here. Rome fell for a variety of reasons, but moral corruption was certainly a minor reason, if a “reason” at all.

[bvw]

The primary insight -- that hedonism leads to a pervading apathy in the society smells right. Yet you bring no build up of insights as to why that is, nor much of a historical founding in examples.

Just off the cuff, I'd say that the situation today in the Netherlands gives some weight. There they have allowed a great libertine ethos in the public law, prostitution, sexual mores, adoptions, marriages, etc. And what the upshot -- an apathy to the invasion of Islam! Islam is the polar opposite libertine-wise, yet the hedonism says like some drugged idiot -- "Hey ho, that's okay too!"

[bvw]

“Certainly” as used last is a sign of weakness in your argument.

[arderkrag]

The use of “certainly”? My use of the word is grammatically correct.

[bvw]

Indeed. It was also helpful to the reader, in some regard.

[Yomin Postelnik]

There's a difference between hedonism and what you describe. Generally hedonism embraces perverse acts that are destructive to society.

[Yomin Postelnik]

To what end and to what limit?........
Certainly you can appreciate the harm inherent in such a philosophy.

[Yomin Postelnik]

Thanks Clint!

[aristotleman]

Well, Greeks and Romans lasted thousands of years before spiraling off into decadence. Contemporary American culture is only 250 years old and already cracking and buckling under the pressures of mass hedonia. What will this mean in 50 years?

[Donald Rumsfeld Fan]

According to Gibbon, the Roman Empire succumbed to barbarian invasions because of a loss of civic virtue among its citizens.[4] They had become weak, outsourcing their duties to defend their Empire to barbarian mercenaries, who then became so numerous and ingrained that they were able to take over the Empire. Romans, he believed, had become effeminate, unwilling to live a tougher, "manly" military lifestyle.

Wiki

[arderkrag]

To the limit that it does not directly interfere with your rights. Perfect example - prostitution being legal. Find me an instance where prostitution interferes with your rights. You can’t. You can only find personal beliefs against it, and therefore, it should be legal. Now, if you personally want to go out and oppose it, you’re free to do that.

[Yomin Postelnik]

I would challenge you to study history and human nature and reexamine your views in the light of logic. Upholding irrational beliefs and calling others that are well supported by past events and world history “nonsense” shows nothing more than an emotional attachment to falsehoods. Taking leave of them would do you well.

[Yomin Postelnik]

That’s a good tip.

[arderkrag]

But wait...I thought wikipedia was nasty, icky, and funded by liberals. [/sarc]

[MrB]

Yeah, if we just allow this little bit of extra constitutional socialism, we won’t slip in a little bit more.

And, if we just relax these standards over here, there won’t be any consequences, and we won’t try to race to the lowest common denominator of behavior.

Nope, haven’t seen this happen in our country, not once.

[Yomin Postelnik]

It was actually the root of all other reasons, corruption, lack of military resolve, unwillingness to fight, complacency - all stemming from hedonism/a do it now if it feels good attitude and over indulgence.

[Yomin Postelnik]

Very good point and I’ll try to incorporate more examples in future.

[Joe 6-pack]

"We believe hedonism should be allowed, though, and certainly not punished by the government."

IMHO, right now at this point in history, the danger our society faces is not so much from the possibility our government will punish hedonism as it is from the likelihood it will sanction and encourage it.

[MrB]

The problem is that we’ve taken to “subsidizing” behaviors that, in the past, would have led to self correcting consequences.
We subsidize them by forcing others to pay for the consequences, so that the individual choosing the behaviors has no incentive to do otherwise.

I’m with you, to a certain point - let people choose to do what they want, without harming others, but they must, INDIVIDUALLY, suffer the consequences.

Within this system, you’ll quickly find that those that stay within the common moral boundaries don’t experience those consequences, and reap the rewards of success.

Moral “laws” are nearly as inviolable as physical laws, with as predictable results.

[Yomin Postelnik]

It is a problem and we must be aware of it and work to turn it around, something that can only be done by educating.

[Yomin Postelnik]

You must admit that treating women like dogs and a society that encourages same, instead of encouraging them to fulfill their talent in ways that benefit society, robs society of such talent. More importantly, it also leads to the breakdown of marriage, increased divorce rates, lack of family cohesion, out of control kids, crime, etc.

[arderkrag]

Yeh. Sure. I've done 2 reports on Rome(I'm a history major), neither mentioned hedonism at all. Why? Because It's not worth mentoning. Plenty of empires that were not hedonist have fallen. Hedonism, therefore, cannot be a root cause as it is portrayed by those trying to draw a comparison to modern times. A good source on Rome can be found here:

http://ancienthistory.about.com/cs/romefallarticles/a/fallofrome.htm

Of course, I can already predict the response: "That must have been written by a bunch of liberal atheists blah blah blah" as opposed to presenting worthwhile academic arguments.

[Yomin Postelnik]

Well said!

[arderkrag]

Well, yes, that is problematic (the subsidizing behaviors bit). I’m not for that, though, so it’s kind of a side point. I’m for a “do what you want, if you wreck yourself, that’s just tough” kind of society.

[Yomin Postelnik]

Some very good points. Good tag line as well.

[MrB]

I don’t believe it’s a “side point” at all.

We’d have a lot more freedom if the gov’t and taxpayer didn’t have a vested interest in “keeping the costs down” for behavior choices.

And, we’d have a lot more moral society, by default.

[Yomin Postelnik]

Well, you seem to be so emotionally attached to the issue that you illogically predict others responses but here's my real response:

I'm sure your reports were filled with facts in well formatted textbook style. However, I'm sure they left out the root causes and that you still fail to see them, largely because of what those causes would entail.

The root of all causes, whether they be corruption, lack of military resolve, unwillingness to fight, complacency - all stem from hedonism and a do it now if it feels good attitude.

[Clint N. Suhks]

Publik sex acts, publik drug use and gambling in publik wouldn't affect my personal rights. And still wouldn't even if the Liberaltarians threw out zoning laws to boot...all my personal rights would be intact.

Apparently our rights not to be witness to immorality is not a personal right given Liberaltarian convoluted philosophy.

[arderkrag]

Actually, emotional attachment has nothing to do with it, I just think it's a sign of poor logic that people here hide behind the "it must be written by liberals" excuse whenever a Wiki or Academic source is used that contradicts their beliefs, instead of responding in a worhtwhile fashion by using links and sources of their own.

The root causes of most of that was not hedonism, in my opinion. We'll just have to agree to disagree on that.

[Lurker]

Utter drivel.

And the author has an extremely poor grasp of history.

Other than that, it's great.

L

[Pietro]

"prostitution... and therefore, it should be legal"

You're wrong about that. Societies have the responsibility to establish and maintain a civic moral code. In the absence of such a code societies break down.

Prostitution is a perfect example of how "victimless crimes" are in fact not victimless. Some examples:

The spread of deadly STDs

The comoditization of sex and the degradation it leads to

Sexual slavery

The degradation of women

The damage done to families.

The prohibition against prostitution was developed because these things occur where there is no regulation. Human societies HAVE experience w/ prostitution and understand what it leads to.

Society is a swimming pool we all share, what you do in your corner of the pool impacts everyone else. A few simple rules are required.

[arderkrag]

Societies have the responsibility to establish and maintain a civic moral code.

You're free to think that. I personally belive using government to impose my morality is no better than a liberla using it to impose theirs.

[Pietro]

Goevrnment imposes morality whether we want it to or not. The idea that a government could be amoral is simply a pipe dream.

The question is whose morality will prevail, and that's what public debate is about and for. Each of us have a voice and are responsible for sharing it.

You're entitled to your opinion, of course, and I'm free to disagree. Which of our positions, if either, prevails, is ultimately up to the type of politicians we elect.

[Yomin Postelnik]

See post 24 and the same applies to your comments. It’s amazing how some will either close their eyes to history or spin it, all the while falsely accusing others of the same, in order to protect their irrational opinions that do not stand up to the test of logic, all in order to promote a feel good at the moment - pay later lifestyle.

[Yomin Postelnik]

But in Post 22 someone brought Wiki to support the argument that hedonism was the root cause of the other problems. This also becomes apparent in any analysis of what caused the factors you point to.

[arderkrag]

Yes, and I properly responded by providing a link of my own. I just can’t stand when people hide behnd the “it must be a liberal source” excuse when it disagrees with them. A worthwhile debater does not attack sources, he responds with sources that disagree with the inital premise.

[purpleraine]

It is a losing battle to fight the old fall of Rome nonsense. Why learn anything different, when you use old canards to beat people over the head with it and try to stop them from sinning?

[Antoninus]

Same here. Rome fell for a variety of reasons, but moral corruption was certainly a minor reason, if a “reason” at all.

Ah, so you know better than Roman soldier historians who were eye-witnesses. Right...

Julianus Augustus drives all the eunuchs, barbers and cooks from the palace. On the vices of the eunuchs of the court and the corruption of military discipline.

After this the emperor turned his attention to the palace attendants, and dismissed all who belonged to that class or could be included in it, but not like a philosopher claiming to research into truth. For he might have been commended if he at least retained some, few though they were, who were of modest behaviour or known to be of virtuous character. But it must be admitted that the major part of those creatures maintained a vast nursery of all the vices, to such a degree that they infected the state with evil passions, and rather by their example than by their license in wrong-doing injured many. For some of them, fattened on the robbery of temples and scenting out gain from every source, on being raised from abject poverty at one bound to enormous wealth, knew no limit to bribery, robbery, and extravagance, always accustomed as they were to seize the property of others. Hence sprang the seeds of a dissolute life, perjury and disregard for good name, and their mad pride stained their honour by shameful gains. Meanwhile, gluttony and deep abysses of banquets grew apace, and the place of triumphs won in battle was taken by those gained at the table. The lavish use of silk and of the textile arts increased, and more anxious attention to the kitchen. Showy sites for richly adorned houses were eagerly sought, of such dimensions that if the consul Quinctius had owned as much in farmland, he would have lost the glory of his poverty even after his dictatorship.

To these conditions, shameful as they were, were added serious defects in military discipline. In place of the war-song the soldiers practised effeminate ditties; the warriors' bed was not a stone (as in days of yore), but feathers and folding couches; their cups were now heavier than their swords (for they were ashamed to drink from earthenware); they even procured houses of marble, although it is written in the records of old that a Spartan soldier was severely punished because during a campaign he dared to be seen under a roof. Moreover, the soldiers of those times were so insolent and rapacious towards their countrymen, and so cowardly and weak in the presence of the enemy, that having acquired riches by patronage and idleness, they were adepts in distinguishing the varieties of gold and gems, contrary to the usage even of recent times. For it is well known that under Caesar Maximianus, when a fortified camp of the Persian king was pillaged, a common soldier after finding a Parthian jewel-box containing pearls, threw away the gems in ignorance of their value, and went his way, quite satisfied with the beauty of the leather alone."

Taken from: The History of Ammianus Marcellinus

This excerpt deals with the time around AD 362--16 years before the Battle of Adrianople which was the first major step in the destruction of the Western Empire.