Ponderings on the Nature of Man

[PierreGringoire]

Can the ideal demeanor in an individual be modesty if defined as self-sufficiency with its aide being self-responsibility. With mastery of those two key components and a "good natue*" being the foundation of the two; can one come to live a life of "quiet assertion;" being defined as the intermediate regulation of the phenomenal sensualities. More to the point; (quiet assertion") being defined as the sensual extremeties of pleasure and pain, or to that part of the soul which induces giddiness. It is to my humble opinion that such an approach to life will bring one happiness in its purest and fullest glut. The way to achieve such a desire will be to simply (I am aware of the ambiguity this will stir) restrain first from the giddiness of pleasure, and the converse will follow in suit. And the overall destination of such a risk will be the ability to see beauty in its' truest forms. - I understand the ambiguity and the meanness of my explanation. But if you will, can you put your light on this topic. What is your opinion of your ideal management; for your ideal personal achievement? And how do you wish to attain this conception of your's?
*Perhaps we can discuss this nature and why it is "good"

[mono]

Hello, PierreGringoire, welcome to the forum. ;)
I think what you really ask delves into the distinguishing of Epicurean philosophy (sometimes called something similar to Hedonism - happiness, in essence, defined by the base sensual pleasures) and Utilitarianism (an ethical philosophy seeking the 'greatest good' of every action, which may include modesty and self-sufficiency, as you mentioned).
Of course neither philosophy appears necessarily 'good' or 'bad,' but simply parts of human nature; by nature, humans enjoy pleasure, sometimes to no limit, such as eating, drinking, sleeping, sexual intercourse, or a sloth-like lifestyle; often by nature, too, yet sometimes no inherently, some individuals enjoy promoting the greatest good for themselves and others. Whether the avoidance of the former 'giddiness of pleasure,' as you alluded to, will allure its opposite, I feel unsure, but certainly see how it may, or the concept makes me wonder of how an individual may find other means to pleasure.
Even utilitarianism (developed by Mill and Bentham), however, has its weaknesses. One goal of it focuses on the fair treatment of all sentient organisms; this not only includes humans, but animals, too - anything sentient. Just as one cannot follow any philosophy or religion perfectly, though, there must appear some exceptions; not all people, for example, adhere to vegetarianism or veganism (to avoid the harm of some animals - sentient organisms, just like humans).
Plato wrote of this a bit in The Republic, speaking of a related subject. Perhaps, if you have read it, you recall the 'tri-partite soul/state' - a triangle in appearance. The bottom base of the triangle represented the desiring part of the soul (the 'appetitive'), the middle piece the emotional part of the soul, and the top, crowning piece the rational part of the soul. Of course, this very well outlines Plato's thoughts on what seems superior, but also emphasizes the majority of people who follow their appetitive desires than rational. Applying this theory to The Republic overall, Plato weighed an individual's worth to the state by what part of the soul appeared in utilization - appetitive, emotional, or rational. This organization, he thought, would likely point a state in the direction of happiness and almost utopia.
Again, I would never desire to insult neither Epicureanism nor utilitarianism (or any other ethical philosophy, such as the deontological ethics of Immanuel Kant, the Nicomachean Ethics of Aristotle, or Machiavellianism), but, to answer your last question, in terms of my own ideal personal achievement, I would adhere strongest, besides Kant's ethics, to utilitarianism, rather than Hedonism. I do this primarily by not seeking gratification in all actions, big or small, let alone instant gratification; to me, if I have the feeling I have done well in an action, I do not need the feeling of fullness in my stomach, alcohol intoxication, or sexual intercourse to realize that, but more the knowledge of achievement, or knowing I have done others well. :)

[Thorwench]

Mono,
Avoiding "the giddiness of pleasure" sounds more Stoic to me than Utilitarian. The real dichotomy is between the Epicureans (that there were true hedonists is slander) and the Stoics for whom peace of mind was to be achieved through emotional distance i.e. the avoidance of emotional upheavals or giddiness. The question of pleasure is a complicated one, what does count as pleasure here? Pleasure in the Stoic and Aristotelian sense doesn't need to be this upsurge of passion which we all enjoy so much when we fall in love and hate if we are ridden by fear but is a kind of steady, temperate and measured joy that comes with good conduct and talent (for the Greeks talent is so much more important than it is for us) and can be the agens of good conduct as well. For Kant this is quite different, joy doesn't come in to it, there is only reason which should direct our conduct. One could argue that reason is more than rationality, that reason includes temperance, modesty etc. and therefore an underlying sense of well-being and soundness.
I have known people who were Stoics and found them nice (since they are always polite) and interesting, but they didn't seem to be happy, because they abstained from any sort of relationship that could unhinge their sharp-minded tranquility. In personal conduct I believe you should have both and be able to check (and to indulge) yourself. You should know yourself at least that well that you are able to realise when you are overreacting or when indulging your passionate feelings isn't helpful.

[mono]

Avoiding "the giddiness of pleasure" sounds more Stoic to me than Utilitarian. The real dichotomy is between the Epicureans (that there were true hedonists is slander) and the Stoics for whom peace of mind was to be achieved through emotional distance i.e. the avoidance of emotional upheavals or giddiness.
Indeed, I agree. I stumbled a little bit when attempting to think of the right word and philosophy, and, correct, the Stoic philosophy and ethics seem to fit the concept better than utilitarianism. Thank you, Thorwench; and hopefully this helps you more in your endeavor, PierreGringoire. ;)

[Verbatim]

the nature of man? an answer like that isn't going to be found on the internet :)