The concept of the society of consumption says that in this type of society everything is “for sale” if there is a consumer for this. That means that one can sell not only products and services but people, ideas and values as well. On the other hand, people face many global risks. Confronted by risks, they have become equal regardless of their origins, education or financial status. Anxiety about future and awareness of fragility of a human life causes people to (...) be more likely to indulge themselves with different pleasures. They want to “have fun before they die”. The media, advertisements and medicine offer a variety of products and services that are to make one`s life better and to bring more pleasure and happiness to them. Contemporary hedonism is, after all, different in the sense that it does not avoid pain and suffering. People are willing to suffer in the name of the future pleasure. Will this race to satisfy whims and desires end someday? Will the fast defeat the carnival? Is there a place for reflection and altruism? These are some questions that this paper examines. (shrink)

According to Ibn Khaldūn, man is a social entity deeply influenced by the geo-economics-politics of the environment in which he lives. The effect is seen as so strong that nearly all of these structures in their relationship to human beings are dominated by it. In this system, we see human beings as a creature who is both able to adapt himself to the environment and able to evolve in this harmony. From the perspective of Ibn Khaldūn, man cannot be evaluated (...) or defined separately from the environmental conditions, the technique and architecture he has developed. Ibn Khaldūn sees the primary source of this change to be the desire to make life both more prosperous and bearable. Therefore, the most natural motivations that affect man’s desire to alter the natural world are the environmental challenges that he encounters. The challenges that are imposed upon man in the natural world are those that have led to human progress. From badāwa (nomadic society) to ḥaḍāra (sedentary society) and so to the ceaseless drive of human progress that has served to make life more endurable, every effort in this sense leads to a physical and moral loosening as the incessant struggle to survive that defines human existence is made more bearable. Physical slack by breaking the resistance of man to resist the environmental conditions; and moral looseness by making man more vulnerable to the temptation of desires, pleasures and welfare that are the cause of moral dilemmas. Ibn Khaldūn’s moral thought with its social, political, and other fields of application are all contexts that enable an understanding of the devaluation of money-hedonist morality in all ways. This article aims to analyze the social, political and economic dilemmas and challenges that the capitalist, consumption-based money-hedonist morality (obesity, social media addiction, consumption, and moral devaluation in the face of financial, virtual and imagined valuations, etc.) from the perspective of Ibn Khaldūn. Summary: Man is endowed with both good and evil. Ibn Khaldūn notes that man tends to misuse these two orientations with a higher inclination towards evil, and that social conditions have an effect on this. He sees another characteristic of man, that they develop habits; accordingly, man is the child of his habits. Habits are second nature to man and affects all of his perceptions, particularly notions concerning truth. At the same time, human beings are under the constant influence of both habits, culture, and climate and geography; and all of these together affect our ethics, psychology and characteristics. Thus, man is a historical, social being that is changed, transformed and determined by adapting to these cultural, social, political and ecological conditions. The concept of Money-Hedonism is one that we have created by combining the terms monetarism, an economic concept, and hedonism, a concept in moral philosophy; the resulting term we seek to produce essentially translates as the adoration of Money. As is well known, hedonism refers to a philosophy of life that has its origins in the ancient Greek world which sees the purpose of life as one in which the pursuit of pleasure is the highest good. Whereas, Monetarism is an American-based economic view developed by Milton Friedman in 1970, linking all the balance in the economy to the supply and demand of money. According to this, the demand for money is operation, precaution and motives of speculation of individuals the amount of money they want to keep in cash on them. The power of an exchange tool increases with the amount and quality of what it is achievable in its utilization. In this respect, money has been an unprecedented source of power in modern society as a means by which change can be achieved. The increase in the power of money as an effective means as manifesting power has led to a socio-cultural and socio-economic superstructure around this power. In the life of an individual that is part of such a culture and is unable to isolate himself from the economy in which he lives, the values that can be expressed with money are consequently formed. In this structure, since the measure of life is money, money determines the quality of human life and human pleasure to a far greater degree than at any time in history. Thus, those living in this age have developed a new moral philosophy of value formed by the combination of these two concepts (monetarism and hedonism), which we have defined as Money-Hedonism. The money-hedonist individual is one that is in love with money, the joy of having it, the pleasure of using it, who desires it with immeasurable passion and ambition and is willing to use all legitimate and illegitimate methods of obtaining it. The most prominent characteristics of this type of individual is egoism, a desire to possess, hatred and mistrust. Ibn Khaldūn argues that the inhabitants of a city that live a settled life and who are living in the city have become economically prosperous and absorbed by consumption and pleasure, and, consequently morally degenerate as a result of the abuse of their evil nature. As can be understood from Ibn Khaldūn’s explanations, the basic element that determines the transition of people from the badāwi way of life to ḥaḍāri (settled) is the change in the livelihoods and related needs. He perceives this change as progressing from necessity to luxury, and, with this change, ethical concern in the nature of people being replaced by aesthetic care. In this way, since aesthetic concern reveals the dissatisfaction of the human self, man always pursues what is perceived to be better and more beautiful, and therefore he easily tends to any malignancy that may disrupt his religious and worldly peace. The ḥaḍāra community of Ibn Khaldūn versus the badāwa represent a modern society with a much more heterogeneous population, with a significant increase in lifestyle diversity along with urbanization. However, the determinative effect of the relationship with nature or the way in which society engage in economic activities have not changed. While modern people are urbanized, they are also heterogeneously shaped by psycho-social necessities demanded by urbanization. Man has created a new socio-psychological condition that not only affects the socio-economic but the way of forming a relationship through the accelerated development of new communication methods, facilitating access to information, and the opening of new methods of communication field between institutions. While man’s connection to nature has become disconnected, he no longer perceives himself as human being in nature but as a human within the city, the individual urban life and the law define this perception. The rupture from nature has created an inevitable result of alienation to nature as well as the estrangement of man with his own nature. The liberal policies adopted with capitalism have encouraged competition and free entrepreneurship. In the time that Ibn Khaldūn lived, man who created himself with his struggle in the nature brings himself / herself into the economic structure of competition in the modern period. Unlike in more traditional societies of the past, the modern way of life not only expresses itself in our new way of life and moral values, but also by statistical values. The exploitative and mathematical world, which forms the current economic science, shapes the socio-economic and socio-psychological structure of modern man. It is understood that the life brought by luxury renders the dynamic, subjective, disciplined sense of morality dysfunctional by destroying the moral values of man, particularly by reducing their feeling of shame. As a result, while the world of value of money-hedonism is solid, materialistic and cold; man in trying to exist in this world of value carries a flexible, spiritual and emotional nature. As such, human beings are pushed into social anomaly situations such as a constant conflict, dilemma, suicide, insecurity and solitude in this world of value. (shrink)

Değer felsefesindeki önemli ayrımlardan birisi özsel değer ve araçsal değer ayrımıdır. Bu ayrıma göre bazı şeyler dışsal ilişkilerinden bağımsız şekilde, kendi doğası itibariyle, özsel şekilde değerli iken bazı şeyler, böyle olmayıp ancak özsel şekilde değerli olan başka bir şeye araç olması itibariyle değerlidir. Bu ayrım üzerinden ilerlediğimiz zaman önümüze çıkan temel sorulardan birisi hangi şeylerin özsel şekilde değerli olduğu sorusudur. Hedonizm bu soruya sadece hazzın özsel şekilde değerli olduğu ve haz dışındaki her şeyin sadece hazza götürmesi veya haz vermesi (...) sayesinde, araçsal olarak değerli olduğu cevabını verir. Fakat hedonizmin bu temel iddiası yeteri kadar temellendirilmiş midir? Bu temel tez lehinde yeteri kadar sağlam veya güçlü argümanlar var mıdır? Yine bu temel tez aleyhinde sağlam veya güçlü argümanlar var mıdır? Bu çalışmada bu sorulara cevap bulmaya çalıştık. Daha spesifik olarak da çalışmamızda, hedonizmin lehinde sunulan yaygın argümanların yeteri kadar güçlü olmadığını, genelde, yaygın olarak başvurulan argümanların öncüllerinin doğruluğunun yeteri kadar açık veya temellendirilmiş olmamasından hareketle göstermeye çalıştık. Diğer yandan hedonizmin aleyhindeki, onun tutarsızlığına veya temel tezinin makul olmadığına işaret eden karşı argümanları sunduk. Böylece hedonizmin lehindeki argümanların yetersiz olduğu ve onun aleyhinde çok sayıda ikna edici argümanın bulunduğu gerekçelerinden hareketle hedonizmin felsefi açıdan temellendirilmiş, sağlam bir yaklaşım olmadığını savunmaya çalıştık. (shrink)

Celem artykułu jest przedstawienie informacji o życiu i dorobku naukowym oraz publicystycznym ks. Jana Ciemniewskiego (1866–1947). Podstawą źródłową służącą opracowaniu niniejszej publikacji są główne dzieła polskiego kapłana. Posiłkowano się również opracowaniami filozoficznymi i teologicznymi zagadnień, które rozważał opisywany uczony, powstałymi zarówno w okresie jego aktywności naukowej i duszpasterskiej, jak i po jego śmierci. Ciemniewski był kapłanem interesującym się filozofią i teologią oraz pedagogiką. Był twórcą systemu filozofii wychowania opartego na klasycznej, arystotelesowsko-tomistycznej koncepcji natury ludzkiej osoby oraz etyce zakładającej konieczność wychowania (...) człowieka poprzez kształtowanie w nim cnót kardynalnych. Szczególnym przedmiotem zainteresowań uczynił doskonalącą rozum cnotę roztropności, a także cnotę męstwa i umiarkowania, nazywaną przez siebie cnotą wstrzemięźliwości. Twierdził, że w wychowaniu nie tylko dzieci i młodzieży, ale także i dorosłej części społeczeństwa, należy zwracać uwagę na walkę z alkoholizmem i nieczystością, ponieważ one głównie zagrażają egzystencji jednostek i narodu. Pisał, że alkohol nie tylko osłabia wolę człowieka, ale także uszkadza jego system nerwowy oraz przyczynia się do zubożenia materialnego osoby nadużywającej tego trunku. Opracowując swoją koncepcję wychowania, Ciemniewski korzystał z bogatego dorobku myśli europejskiej. Interesował się także psychologią eksperymentalną oraz czerpał inspiracje od polskich psychologów (J. Ochorowicz, R. Radziwiłłowicz, T. Jaroszyński). Krytykował liberalizm etyczny, materializm, hedonizm. Według tego uczonego właściwe wychowanie polega na usprawnianiu ludzkiego intelektu i wzmacnianiu siły woli człowieka. (shrink)

In this article we argue that it is reasonable to believe that normal vertebrate animals can feel pleasure, and that there is sufficient evidence for a capacity for pleasure in some invertebrates. It follows that the pleasures of animals are morally significant. We argue for that in a few steps. First, we explain why philosophers used to concentrate more on pain rather than pleasure in regard to animals. Second, we define the notion of pleasure and show how it implies to (...) non-human animals. Third we discuss whether animals are conscious beings and how they may feel pleasure. It is true that we do not know exactly how pain and pleasure feel to nonhumans, but this is also true for other humans. Even though we can give a detailed verbal description of what we feel, pains and pleasures are subjective and we do not have any certain insight into what another human is feeling. This limitation should not stop us from behaving in a way that takes into account the fact that both we and many nonhuman animals are beings who can suffer and enjoy. (shrink)

Nietzsche's treatment of Epicurus is an interesting example of philosophical hermeneutics. Epicurus bas tren notoriously misinterpreted, claims Nietzsche, because bis mask bas been taken for bis true face. Traditionally Epicurus is presented as a utilitarian or hedonist avant la lettre. This is a simplification motivated by a desire to deprecate bis philosophy. To Nietzsche Epicurus was „an idyllic hero”, a teacher with anistocratic predilections aun his own concept of good, critical of the traditional form of religion, and of the „pre-existent (...) form of Cbristianity”. As a hedonist he was much less convincing, as he was afraid of both pain and pleasure. He assumed the mask of an epicure in order to hide bis true self. Nietzsche warn us over and over again not to trust the traditional interpretation of Epicurus and urges us to penetrate beyond the veil of a stylish disguise. (shrink)