I have read many philosophy books now, but none of them answer what I consider to be the most fundamental question needed to live: why choose good over bad, why choose right over wrong, why choose pleasure over pain? The closest I got was "Notes From Underground" but it gave no answer.I have come to a conclusion that there is no answer.
I feel good when i do good things althoughbeit.Humans are social and helping someone helps society which helps me. Anti social behavior is objectively bad fir oeople as a whole, and society on any scale. Tribal or global.
Doing good is good and doing bad is bad, it's in the fucking names of the words.
when haven't read enough or haven't understood what you read. There's no "why" in good. It's better than bad because it is "good". You're operating on some kind of utilitarianism and don't realize it.
>>25187368oh and to illustrate this. Why do you care that your question is unanswered? is it "good" that questions are answered? why choose answers instead of living in doubt
>>25187354good and bad doesn't exist, right and wrong doesn't exist, pleasure and pain aren't the end all reasons to do something. there are questions more fundamental than what you ask, so please keep trying to ask questions that are more correct. hope this helps.
working out is painful but it's good for you. The pleasure/pain dichotomy is retarded
>>25187383If i want to die but working out prolongs my life, is it not bad for me personally?
>>25187354Most philosphy lack metaphysical groundwork and as such struggle to answer the question of "why".That's why real philosophy (see Heidegger) don't bother with the "why" of philosophy.
>>25187354Why would it ever make sense to choose the truly worse over the truly better? For example, if your two options are to get a good night's sleep or slam your hand in a door for an entire night until it is mangled, why pick the latter (all else equal)?I think the question is confused. Most of the history of ethics is concerned with the question of what is truly best as opposed to merely apparently so. The dialectic is between real and merely apparent goods, and higher and lower goods.Only with voluntarism do we start to see the odd drift of morality into something that is totally about legalistic obligations, which are totally divorced from teleology and a measure of the good life. (Notably, this understanding is pretty foreign to the Orthodox tradition Dostoevsky is coming from, although it comes in through social theories, etc. by his era). This tends to make morality a matter of either inscrutable command or a sort of univocal calculus (e.g., utilitarianism) and arguably it renders it incoherent (see pic related).
>>25187354because jesus loves you
