#Existential Ethics

[omegaphilosophia]

The Philosophy of Pharisaism

The Philosophy of Pharisaism explores the moral, social, and religious implications of a worldview rooted in strict legalism, performative virtue, and rigid orthodoxy. While the term Pharisee originates from a Jewish sect during the Second Temple period, in philosophy and cultural critique, “pharisaism” has evolved into a broader metaphor for hypocrisy cloaked in moral superiority, external righteousness without internal reflection, and a concern for appearances over substance.

Key Philosophical Themes of Pharisaism:

1. Moral Legalism vs. Ethical Substance

Pharisaism often reflects a devotion to the letter of the law rather than the spirit of ethical principles. Philosophers from Jesus of Nazareth to Kierkegaard and Nietzsche critiqued moral systems that value rule-following without authentic inner virtue or transformation.

2. Authenticity vs. Hypocrisy

Pharisaism is emblematic of a disconnect between outward behavior and inward belief. Existentialist thinkers, especially Kierkegaard, saw this as a failure to live authentically. The appearance of goodness becomes more important than being good.

3. Social Hierarchies and Moral Elitism

In many interpretations, pharisaism involves the use of moral codes to create social distinctions, reinforcing elitism and exclusion. It raises questions about how moral and religious frameworks can be manipulated to uphold power structures.

4. Public Virtue and Performative Morality

Modern parallels can be drawn to what is now called virtue signaling—demonstrating moral stances more for social approval than sincere belief. This aligns with the idea that pharisaism is concerned more with being seen as good than doing good.

5. Judgment and the Ethics of Mercy

Pharisaism often relies on harsh judgment rather than compassion. Philosophers of moral psychology question how societies balance justice with mercy, and whether strict moralism breeds cruelty or dehumanization.

Philosophical Critiques and Echoes:

Jesus criticized the Pharisees not for being wrong per se, but for being hypocrites—valuing ritual purity while neglecting justice and love.

Nietzsche saw pharisaic morality as resentment-driven and life-denying, part of the slave morality that suppresses vitality.

Foucault might interpret pharisaism as a technique of moral surveillance—where individuals internalize moral rules to regulate themselves and others.

Kierkegaard lamented “Christendom’s” pharisaism as a form of lukewarm faith—socially acceptable religiosity without personal sacrifice or truth.

Contemporary Relevance:

In politics, pharisaism can describe those who promote ethical postures publicly while acting in contradiction privately.

In activism, it cautions against reducing ethics to optics—valuing appearances over engagement.

In religion, it warns of dogma without spiritual depth or compassion.

In Summary:

The philosophy of pharisaism is not just a religious critique; it is a profound ethical inquiry into the dangers of performative virtue, hollow righteousness, and legalistic moralism. It invites us to ask: Is our goodness rooted in sincere conviction—or in a need to appear virtuous? And when do systems of morality become tools for power rather than for liberation?

[collapseofindustrialcivilization]

The Naked Apocalypse: How Industrial Civilization Made Human Extinction Thinkable—and Possible

Human Extinction: From Unthinkable to Imminent The possibility of human extinction—our complete disappearance as a species—has become a defining anxiety of the twenty-first century. This is not merely a product of scientific speculation or dystopian imagination, but a reflection of profound shifts in how we understand ourselves, our place in the cosmos, and our relationship to the biosphere. The…

[incognitopolls]

Hypothetical: You're offered immortality, but in order to keep yourself alive you must kill another human periodically.

You cannot have someone else perform the kill for you, or wait for an accident to occur. You must perform the kill directly and intentionally.

You cannot "save up" kills by doing multiple at the same time; only one death counts for the interval you select.

You must keep track of the time yourself.

We ask your questions anonymously so you don’t have to! Submissions are open on the 1st and 15th of the month.

[philosophybits]

The truth is that outside of existence there is nobody. Man exists. For him it is not a question of wondering whether his presence in the world is useful, whether life is worth the trouble of being lived. These questions make no sense. It is a matter of knowing whether he wants to live and under what conditions.

Simone de Beauvoir, The Ethics of Ambiguity

[recsspecs]

Might not shoot a person but kill an ant; is the value of life determined by the size of the body or human-centric understandings of social contributions or responsibilities?

[pav-anne]

"If you crush a cockroach, you're a hero. If you crush a beautiful butterfly, you're a villain. Morals have aesthetic criteria"- Friedrich Nietzsche

[dark-rx]

The self is both a mask and a mirror, forever oscillating between who we pretend to be and who we dread discovering.

℞

[anghraine]

i just saw someone say that faramir is infuriating because he's self-aggrandizing in claiming that he won't act in any way that doesn't befit his status, and on one hand - i understand the root of it? he does have a courteous, almost formal style of talking. he does openly claim that he would not take this mysterious power (before he knew about the ring) if it was on the highway. he agrees to denethor's characterization that he wants to appear noble like a king of old.

but on the other hand i'm straining at the bit to defend my baby because - infuriating?? when he lives up to the words he is saying?? when the text shows over and over that he's loved by his people, that he genuinely tries to live by those standards (and seems to succeed) - him not killing even animals unnecessarily, him riding back for his men. even his proclaimed dream to see gondor's tree bloom and peace restored, is supported by him seemingly making that transition from steward to king as smooth as possible?

maybe it's because i instantly liked him so much. it just caught me so off guard because this particular criticism never ever crossed my mind. so funny how people will interpret the same thing differently. to some internet user out there, his words are self-aggrandizing. to me, his words are straightfoward and supported by actions - dreamboat central.

Hi, anon! I'm pretty much with you on this one. I've seen the occasional post like that, and I can understand finding his style grating (though I personally love it) or disliking the general baggage associated with Tolkien's handling of Númenóreanness (there's a considerable degree of classism and racism built in to the presentation of Elves and peredhil/Númenóreans in LOTR in particular, while later texts like "The Mariner's Wife" are relatively more nuanced).

But the idea that Faramir is essentially just performing the appearance of high virtue as a sort of imitation of Númenórean cultural values without actually possessing those values or the virtues of the best of them just seems a profound misinterpretation to me. He has flaws, but he's not a hypocrite and he does not fail to live up to his presentation of himself at any point.

He's exactly what he appears to be, a stern and intelligent young man out of step with the current trends of his culture, who still cares deeply about his people and their allies. He's potentially highly dangerous in the way of Denethor and Aragorn, and like them, his personality is hard and unbending when it comes down to it, but he's also gentler than either—the combination of his willingness to act on the threat he represents if necessary and ethically justifiable, with a deep compassion and sympathy for others (even animals), is distinct and really interesting.

I think there's a very important distinction between Faramir performing virtue and gentleness and putting on the persona of a great Númenórean lord in times of peace, and Faramir presenting himself as he truly is and then suiting actions to words, despite the fundamental antipathy between his temperamental inclinations and the circumstances he's been placed in.

[thoughtportal]

[ashes-in-a-jar]

Hey any Enthics Town listeners in the crowd? Good episode this week btw but I feel like I missed something, why did Ian suddenly react with 'oh fu-' at the end? What happened?

[existentialcomicsfeed]

Brave Sir Bentham, Utilitarian Knight

[omegaphilosophia]

The Philosophy of Happiness

The philosophy of happiness explores the nature, sources, and significance of happiness in human life. It examines what constitutes true happiness, how it can be achieved, and its role in ethical and meaningful living. Philosophers have approached happiness from various perspectives, including ethical, psychological, and existential viewpoints, leading to diverse understandings of what it means to live a happy life.

Key Themes in the Philosophy of Happiness:

Definitions and Concepts of Happiness:

Eudaimonia (Flourishing): In ancient Greek philosophy, particularly in the works of Aristotle, happiness is often equated with "eudaimonia," which is best translated as flourishing or well-being. Eudaimonia is achieved through living virtuously and fulfilling one's potential, rather than through the pursuit of pleasure alone.

Hedonism: Hedonism defines happiness as the pursuit of pleasure and the avoidance of pain. This view, associated with philosophers like Epicurus, suggests that a happy life is one in which pleasure is maximized and suffering minimized. However, Epicurus emphasized simple pleasures and the avoidance of excess.

Ethical Theories and Happiness:

Utilitarianism: Utilitarian philosophers like Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill argue that the right action is the one that maximizes happiness for the greatest number of people. In this context, happiness is often understood as the presence of pleasure and the absence of pain.

Virtue Ethics: Aristotle’s virtue ethics posits that happiness is achieved by living a life of virtue. Virtuous actions, in accordance with reason, lead to a state of eudaimonia, where individuals live in harmony with their true nature and purpose.

Deontological Ethics: While not focused solely on happiness, deontological ethics, as developed by Immanuel Kant, suggests that true happiness comes from fulfilling one’s moral duties. Kant argues that happiness is not the primary goal of moral action, but living morally can lead to a form of happiness tied to a sense of duty and integrity.

Happiness and the Good Life:

The Role of Reason: In many philosophical traditions, particularly in the works of Plato and Aristotle, happiness is linked to the exercise of reason. A life guided by rational thought and the pursuit of wisdom is seen as the highest form of happiness.

The Balance of Pleasure and Virtue: Philosophers like Aristotle and the Stoics argue that happiness is not merely about pleasure but involves a balance of pleasure with virtue. Happiness is seen as a byproduct of living a virtuous life, rather than an end in itself.

Subjective and Objective Views of Happiness:

Subjective Well-Being: Modern discussions of happiness often focus on subjective well-being, which is the individual's self-assessment of their life satisfaction and emotional state. This perspective emphasizes personal experience and the psychological aspects of happiness.

Objective Well-Being: In contrast, some philosophers argue that happiness should be understood in objective terms, based on factors like health, relationships, and personal achievements. From this view, happiness is not just about how one feels but also about living a life that meets certain standards of well-being.

Happiness in Different Philosophical Traditions:

Stoicism: Stoic philosophers like Epictetus and Marcus Aurelius argue that happiness comes from accepting the things we cannot change and living in accordance with nature. Happiness, in this view, is achieved through self-discipline, rationality, and emotional resilience.

Epicureanism: Epicurus taught that happiness is found in simple pleasures, friendship, and the absence of pain (ataraxia). He distinguished between necessary and unnecessary desires, advocating for a minimalist lifestyle that avoids unnecessary suffering.

Buddhism: In Buddhist philosophy, happiness is understood as a state of inner peace and enlightenment, achieved by overcoming desire and attachment. The Four Noble Truths outline the path to end suffering, which is seen as the key to true happiness.

Existential Perspectives on Happiness:

Sartre and Existential Freedom: Existentialist philosophers like Jean-Paul Sartre argue that happiness is not a predefined state but something that individuals must create for themselves through their choices. Happiness is linked to the authentic exercise of freedom and the responsibility to define one’s own existence.

Camus and the Absurd: Albert Camus, another existentialist, explores the idea that life is inherently absurd and that the search for meaning or happiness can seem futile. However, he argues that one can still find happiness in embracing the absurd and living fully in the face of it.

The Pursuit of Happiness in Modern Thought:

Positive Psychology: In contemporary philosophy and psychology, the study of happiness has expanded with the development of positive psychology. This field focuses on understanding and fostering the factors that contribute to human flourishing, such as positive emotions, relationships, meaning, and accomplishments.

Happiness and Society: Modern philosophers and social theorists explore the relationship between happiness and social conditions, including wealth, inequality, and political systems. Debates continue on how society can be organized to promote the well-being and happiness of its members.

Critiques and Challenges:

Hedonic Treadmill: One critique of the pursuit of happiness is the "hedonic treadmill" effect, where people quickly return to a baseline level of happiness despite changes in their circumstances. This challenges the idea that lasting happiness can be achieved through external factors alone.

The Paradox of Happiness: Some philosophers and psychologists argue that the direct pursuit of happiness can be self-defeating. Focusing too much on becoming happy may lead to anxiety or disappointment, while happiness often arises as a byproduct of other activities, such as meaningful work or relationships.

The philosophy of happiness offers a rich and varied exploration of what it means to live well. It challenges individuals to consider the sources of true happiness, the role of virtue and reason in the good life, and the balance between personal pleasure and ethical living. Whether seen as a subjective state, an objective condition, or a byproduct of living authentically, happiness remains a central concern in philosophical inquiry, reflecting the enduring human quest for fulfillment and well-being.

[incognitopolls]

We ask your questions anonymously so you don’t have to! Submissions are open on the 1st and 15th of the month.

[philosophybits]

One can not start by saying that our earthly destiny has or has not importance, for it depends upon us to give it importance. It is up to man to make it important to be a man, and he alone can feel his success or failure.

Simone de Beauvoir, The Ethics of Ambiguity

[sunsetschloe]

It’s honestly heartbreaking to see how each of the characters accept their fate with total resignation. No questions, no doubts, no hope for survival, just pure acceptance. To be taught that your only purpose in life is to donate your organs so real humans could continue living defeats any meaning in life. They are born, they grow up, and they die, like any other living being does, but their lack of purpose in their future makes them so different to us. None of them worry about their future careers, nor their future spouses, or even their future at all. It’s all predetermined, and all they have to do is keep themselves alive and healthy so they can be used. They do have a better life than some humans currently living on this planet, but they’re also deprived of chances of ever being able to work for a better life. They’re stuck in this life forever, and their only escape is death. Maybe that’s why they embrace their completion without fear: they never had hope for a future from the start. 

Something I’ve been pondering about is what I would’ve done if I were in their situation. Would I have spent my entire existence trying to escape this predetermined fate, or would I accept it and move into other things in life. Perhaps it’s not escaping fate that matters the most, because the end will come no matter what we do, and we’ll all complete someday. Perhaps being like Kathy and Ruth and Tommy and all these characters, who accepted their fate and chose to continue making memories and experiencing the wonders of this world, would satisfy our hopes and dreams, because all that’s left in the end are the memories, isn’t it?