u/Fearless-Board-5543

Happiness is defined by the greatest psychologists as living life in flow state, the state where challenge and ability are in the perfect ratio known. Argued to be the only remedy to the insatiability of man. The best way to grow is through the psychological theory of deliberate practice. One pushes themselves past flow state to the limits of their capabilities to achieve more progress at the cost of enjoyment. These psychological states match almost perfectly the philosophical positions of Nietzsche and Aristotle.

Aristotle's theory of happiness: eudaimonia, states that happiness is the end of all aims, which lies in rationality. Rationality in turn demands of one to live a life of virtue(living within the golden mean). The golden mean is the principle of the middle point between vice and virtue. Flow being the midpoint of ability and challenge, suffering and pleasure is perfectly fitting of this description.

Will to power follows the principle of overcoming. It is based on the condition of life. Natural selection being the process of life overcoming constraints and that being the underlying reason behind all drives. Flow fits into Nietzsche's philosophical worldview as the very purpose of happiness and pleasure are to be evolutionary traits beneficiary to overcoming the constraints of our environment. The difference lies in Aristotle identifying happiness to be a necessary natural conclusion of living out life's purpose(a life of virtue). While for Nietzsche overcoming(will to power) could lead one to a life of misery. As he describes in geneaology of morals(third essay:"What is the meaning of ascetic ideals?") when talking about the optimal lifestyle of the philosopher(The ascetic lifestyle which he describes as most of the time leading to a life of misery).

Nietzsche defines the good as "All that heightens the feeling of power in man"- The Antichrist (Aphorism 2). Where power is measured, whether in military conquest or in art Nietzsche leaves up to the individual. In what makes something great and powerful however there is a metric he applies regardless of the field. It is in overcoming, through the noble act of turning suffering and constraints into strength and power. One may be miserable but if in misery their optimum of power lies, then in it is their purpose.

Nietzsche's philosophy fits the theory of deliberate practice where one forces themselves outside of their golden mean of challenge and ability(flow state), and enters the optimum of growth where they are exposed to the hardest challenges that they can still handle. This is less enjoyable then flow state and may even lead one to misery, but if growth ranks to one above even their enjoyment then it is the right way of life for them.

One point both Nietzsche and Aristotle would agree on is that happiness is an internal state of mind based less in action(circumstances of the world), then reaction(how one interprets the world). Thus through practice one can alter what makes them happy to fit certain lifestyles. One could grow to love the suffering of deliberate practice, they could learn to love suffering and love fate. This is achieved through expanding the zone in which one is in flow state so that one day the greatest suffering is a challenge they can take and enjoy. If the happy slave is worse the the miserably king, the happy king is better then both and the most sublime existence.

Happiness is defined by the greatest psychologists as living life in flow state, the state where challenge and ability are in the perfect ratio known. Argued to be the only remedy to the insatiability of man. The best way to grow is through the psychological theory of deliberate practice. One pushes themselves past flow state to the limits of their capabilities to achieve more progress at the cost of enjoyment. These psychological states match almost perfectly the philosophical positions of Nietzsche and Aristotle.

Aristotle's theory of happiness: eudaimonia, states that happiness is the end of all aims, which lies in rationality. Rationality in turn demands of one to live a life of virtue(living within the golden mean). The golden mean is the principle of the middle point between vice and virtue. Flow being the midpoint of ability and challenge, suffering and pleasure is perfectly fitting of this description.

Will to power follows the principle of overcoming. It is based on the condition of life. Natural selection being the process of life overcoming constraints and that being the underlying reason behind all drives. Flow fits into Nietzsche's philosophical worldview as the very purpose of happiness and pleasure are to be evolutionary traits beneficiary to overcoming the constraints of our environment. The difference lies in Aristotle identifying happiness to be a necessary natural conclusion of living out life's purpose(a life of virtue). While for Nietzsche overcoming(will to power) could lead one to a life of misery. As he describes in geneaology of morals(third essay:"What is the meaning of ascetic ideals?") when talking about the optimal lifestyle of the philosopher(The ascetic lifestyle which he describes as most of the time leading to a life of misery).

Nietzsche defines the good as "All that heightens the feeling of power in man"- The Antichrist (Aphorism 2). Where power is measured, whether in military conquest or in art Nietzsche leaves up to the individual. In what makes something great and powerful however there is a metric he applies regardless of the field. It is in overcoming, through the noble act of turning suffering and constraints into strength and power. One may be miserable but if in misery their optimum of power lies, then in it is their purpose.

Nietzsche's philosophy fits the theory of deliberate practice where one forces themselves outside of their golden mean of challenge and ability(flow state), and enters the optimum of growth where they are exposed to the hardest challenges that they can still handle. This is less enjoyable then flow state and may even lead one to misery, but if growth ranks to one above even their enjoyment then it is the right way of life for them.

One point both Nietzsche and Aristotle would agree on is that happiness is an internal state of mind based less in action(circumstances of the world), then reaction(how one interprets the world). Thus through practice one can alter what makes them happy to fit certain lifestyles. One could grow to love the suffering of deliberate practice, they could learn to love suffering and love fate. This is achieved through expanding the zone in which one is in flow state so that one day the greatest suffering is a challenge they can take and enjoy. If the happy slave is worse the the miserably king, the happy king is better then both and the most sublime existence.

Happiness is defined by the greatest psychologists as living life in flow state, the state where challenge and ability are in the perfect ratio known. Argued to be the only remedy to the insatiability of man. The best way to grow is through the psychological theory of deliberate practice. One pushes themselves past flow state to the limits of their capabilities to achieve more progress at the cost of enjoyment. These psychological states match almost perfectly the philosophical positions of Nietzsche and Aristotle.

Aristotle's theory of happiness: eudaimonia, states that happiness is the end of all aims, which lies in rationality. Rationality in turn demands of one to live a life of virtue(living within the golden mean). The golden mean is the principle of the middle point between vice and virtue. Flow being the midpoint of ability and challenge, suffering and pleasure is perfectly fitting of this description.

Will to power follows the principle of overcoming. It is based on the condition of life. Natural selection being the process of life overcoming constraints and that being the underlying reason behind all drives. Flow fits into Nietzsche's philosophical worldview as the very purpose of happiness and pleasure are to be evolutionary traits beneficiary to overcoming the constraints of our environment. The difference lies in Aristotle identifying happiness to be a necessary natural conclusion of living out life's purpose(a life of virtue). While for Nietzsche overcoming(will to power) could lead one to a life of misery. As he describes in genealogy of morals(third essay:"What is the meaning of ascetic ideals?") when talking about the optimal lifestyle of the philosopher(The ascetic lifestyle which he describes as most of the time leading to a life of misery).

Nietzsche defines the good as "All that heightens the feeling of power in man"- The Antichrist (Aphorism 2). Where power is measured, whether in military conquest or in art Nietzsche leaves up to the individual. In what makes something great and powerful however there is a metric he applies regardless of the field. It is in overcoming, through the noble act of turning suffering and constraints into strength and power. One may be miserable but if in misery their optimum of power lies, then in it is their purpose.

Nietzsche's philosophy fits the theory of deliberate practice where one forces themselves outside of their golden mean of challenge and ability(flow state), and enters the optimum of growth where they are exposed to the hardest challenges that they can still handle. This is less enjoyable then flow state and may even lead one to misery, but if growth ranks to one above even their enjoyment then it is the right way of life for them.

One point both Nietzsche and Aristotle would agree on is that happiness is an internal state of mind based less in action(circumstances of the world), then reaction(how one interprets the world). Thus through practice one can alter what makes them happy to fit certain lifestyles. One could grow to love the suffering of deliberate practice, they could learn to love suffering and love fate. This is achieved through expanding the zone in which one is in flow state so that one day the greatest suffering is a challenge they can take and enjoy. If the happy slave is worse the the miserably king, the happy king is better then both and the most sublime existence.

Happiness is defined by the greatest psychologists as living life in flow state, the state where challenge and ability are in the perfect ratio known. Argued to be the only remedy to the insatiability of man. The best way to grow is through the psychological theory of deliberate practice. One pushes themselves past flow state to the limits of their capabilities to achieve more progress at the cost of enjoyment. These psychological states match almost perfectly the philosophical positions of Nietzsche and Aristotle.

Aristotle's theory of happiness: eudaimonia, states that happiness is the end of all aims, which lies in rationality. Rationality in turn demands of one to live a life of virtue(living within the golden mean). The golden mean is the principle of the middle point between vice and virtue. Flow being the midpoint of ability and challenge, suffering and pleasure is perfectly fitting of this description.

Will to power follows the principle of overcoming. It is based on the condition of life. Natural selection being the process of life overcoming constraints and that being the underlying reason behind all drives. Flow fits into Nietzsche's philosophical worldview as the very purpose of happiness and pleasure are to be evolutionary traits beneficiary to overcoming the constraints of our environment. The difference lies in Aristotle identifying happiness to be a necessary natural conclusion of living out life's purpose(a life of virtue). While for Nietzsche overcoming(will to power) could lead one to a life of misery. As he describes in geneaology of morals(third essay:"What is the meaning of ascetic ideals?") when talking about the optimal lifestyle of the philosopher(The ascetic lifestyle which he describes as most of the time leading to a life of misery).

Nietzsche defines the good as "All that heightens the feeling of power in man"- The Antichrist (Aphorism 2). Where power is measured, whether in military conquest or in art Nietzsche leaves up to the individual. In what makes something great and powerful however there is a metric he applies regardless of the field. It is in overcoming, through the noble act of turning suffering and constraints into strength and power. One may be miserable but if in misery their optimum of power lies, then in it is their purpose.

Nietzsche's philosophy fits the theory of deliberate practice where one forces themselves outside of their golden mean of challenge and ability(flow state), and enters the optimum of growth where they are exposed to the hardest challenges that they can still handle. This is less enjoyable then flow state and may even lead one to misery, but if growth ranks to one above even their enjoyment then it is the right way of life for them.

One point both Nietzsche and Aristotle would agree on is that happiness is an internal state of mind based less in action(circumstances of the world), then reaction(how one interprets the world). Thus through practice one can alter what makes them happy to fit certain lifestyles. One could grow to love the suffering of deliberate practice, they could learn to love suffering and love fate. This is achieved through expanding the zone in which one is in flow state so that one day the greatest suffering is a challenge they can take and enjoy. If the happy slave is worse the the miserably king, the happy king is better then both and the most sublime existence.

You observe the world in a detached manner, describing how it is devoid of meaning even if biologically we are hard wired to view certain things as meaningful. But then you do attribute things meaning, you look at suffering and none existence as bad. You seem to be juxtaposing our world with some inconceivable world of inherent values(perhaps the worldview of the religious); through this lens you long for the good out of reach while lamenting the bad in our world. Meaning independent of mind is not only impossible it is unnecessary, in this world lacking of it, you clearly still value.

I also find fault with your outlook on life, you isolate suffering as the bad as if pleasure is the good. There is no pleasure without suffering, they form a greater whole making up the necessary conditions of life. To get rid of suffering you would need to get rid of pleasure, to reject one you must reject the other. This is what monks and some religious folks attempt to do by numbing themselves to desires and pleasures with their ascetic lifestyles. They try to reduce pleasure to reduce suffering, but all you are doing is numbing life, Which may be fine if you believe in something above life. The monks achieve nirvana, and the Christians go to heaven, but if you are an atheist you are better off learning from the stoicism and Nietzschean philosophy. Understand the role suffering plays in life, learning to turn all your suffering into lessons to progress, because without suffering there is no pleasure and no life. You are better off learning Amor Fati(Love fate)

Link to OG thread:https://www.reddit.com/r/Pessimism/comments/1ucllfj/comment/oubczjt/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web3x&utm\_name=web3xcss&utm\_term=1&utm\_content=share\_button

Our philosophical prescriptions should be based on physical descriptions. When we look into the physical with science we not only confirm the truths Nietzsche had once discovered but we do so under a new light which makes our prescriptions even better.

Evolutionary biology: The peer bonding and tournament species behaviors explore two distinct evolutionary strategies. Peer bonding behavior fits within the herd tribe archetype, cooperation is its optimum. Surviving by relying on each other with "altruism" and socially conducive behavior being preferable. The tournament species are more competition based, think the sole lion of a pride. Their behavior is centered around selfishness, making sure they are the only ones passing on their genes.

Both strategies have the same goal of passing on genes, in this even the origin of altruism is selfishness. Oddly enough(or perhaps expected) humans fit in both categories. Today we value peer bonding behavior, the reality that we have to engage in tournament species behavior remains, but undoubtably altruism is seen as the good. This wasn't always the case as Nietzsche remakes within his works. This new lens of looking at things makes his philosophy richer and allows to build on its foundation. This approach more grounded in empirical truth yet still relating to philosophical evaluative truth is how I think philosophy is in its greatest form is.

A lot of people disagreed with my take but a lot didn't really get what I was trying to say. Anyone who's actually tried to understand the deeper themes of Fang Yuan's character should know the author's intention isn't to make him "evil". “There is no such thing as justice in heaven and earth, there is only justice made by humanity.”(ch 1820). My post was an analysis of Fang Yuan's philosophy not an attempt to convince people with their own moral basis(which they most likely haven't even though through and simply inherited from their parents and society) to agree with Fang Yuan's. Someone from America would not abide entirely to the same moral system as Someone in the middle east, and even less similarly then someone 2000 years ago from Rome telling him that they should kill the deformed babies to have the strongest population and army, morality is subjective. Just as you are not evil by not living by the Roman's moral standards Fang yuan isn't for not living like yours.