The reason for your choice is the existential void you experiences? No pain, no happiness, no pleasure. Is you self-chastiding religion-inspired? Are you on the edge of accepting the damned gods?
[quote=baker]One cannot let go of something unless one has something better to hold on to[/quote]
You have a point! We know for certain (?) that pleasure is better than pain. What could be more desirable than pleasure in your opinion? My mind draws a blank. Is it the same for you?
[quote=Hillary]The reason for your choice is the existential void you experiences? No pain, no happiness, no pleasure. Is you self-chastiding religion-inspired? Are you on the edge of accepting the damned gods?[/quote]
Reply to Agent Smith So no more avoiding and reducing and mitigating ... pain / fear / suffering? You're getting yourself lobotomized? radically desensitized via torture? euthanized? Having your CNS-brain's 'reward center' inhibited / excised? (Asking for an epicurean-spinozist friend) how are you going to just "let go" of that old conatus, Smith? :chin:
So no more avoiding and reducing and mitigating ... pain / fear / suffering? You're getting yourself lobotomized? radically desensitized via torture? euthanized? Having your CNS-brain's 'reward center' inhibited / excised? (Asking for an epicurean-spinozist friend) how are you going to just "let go" of that old conatus, Smith?
I was hoping you'd have the answer 180 Proof. There's got to be a way, oui? Does your contradiction-meter give a reading? Mine does not, but that maybe because it's :broken: I'm used to contradictions in that I wouldn't be wrong if I said I've been exposed to a lethal dose of antinomies! Logic bombs going off in that thing between your ears ain't exactly a fun experience. I digress...or do I?
You have a point! We know for certain (?) that pleasure is better than pain. What could be more desirable than pleasure in your opinion? My mind draws a blank. Is it the same for you?
There are different pleasures. Some more sophisticated than others, some with more harmful side-effects or consequences than others.
Understanding this principle, one would be prudent to opt for the less harmful pleasures, or to deliberately look for them in the first place.
We know for certain (?) that pleasure is better than pain. What could be more desirable than pleasure in your opinion? My mind draws a blank. Is it the same for you?
These seem to be truisms. ‘Better’ is synonymous with ‘pleasure’ , which is synonymous with what we desire or prefer. What could be more desirable that what we desire? What could be better than that which we prefer?
What’s needed here is an explanation of the basis of preference in terms of the organizational dynamics of perception and cognitionn. For instance, we could connect that which is desirable in terms of the goal-directedness of anticipatory sense-making.
‘Better’ is synonymous with ‘pleasure’ , which is synonymous with what we desire or prefer.
Indeed! So, we could say nothing is more pleasurable (better) than pleasure which then takes us back to square one. I wish I could say more. This is baffling I tell you. Are we on the same page or not?
Yes. See Behavior Analysis and the concept of replacement behaviors (fulfilling behaviors that are incompatible with the target behavior) - crucial for ridding oneself of unwanted habits.
For example, the desire to remember more of what one reads is incompatible with toking up day and night. And the intellectual accumulations are far more fulfilling than the hedonistic oblivion of THC.
Yes. See Behavior Analysis and the concept of replacement behaviors (fulfilling behaviors that are incompatible with the target behavior) - crucial for ridding oneself of unwanted habits.
Much appreciated! Psychology, one of my favorite subjects. Unfortunately, it seems I haven't put in the right effort (8- fold path). Woe is me! Can you refer me to a crash course website on psychology? Danke.
Reply to Agent Smith In the US, Kindle has a psychology textbook for free. It's long but it's an easy read. Covers the basics. There really isn't a crash course as it's a sprawling, ever-expanding field.
For behavior analysis - connected to Skinner's behaviorism; proven to be successful in the field with problem behaviors of all kinds, especially those rooted in autism - probably the wiki has most of the basic concepts.
In the US, Kindle has a psychology textbook for free. It's long but it's an easy read. Covers the basics. There really isn't a crash course as it's a sprawling, ever-expanding field.
For behavior analysis - connected to Skinner's behaviorism; proven to be successful in the field with problem behaviors of all kinds, especially those rooted in autism - probably the wiki has most of the basic concepts.
Great! I was hoping for a psychology for dummies kinda respectable tome :smile: . I guess I'll have to do it the hard way then.
So, they're true. Sorry if I'm a bit slow, nothing's obvious to me at all.
They’re truisms because they come by their ‘truth’ by not saying anything new. Better, pleasure and desire mean the same thing and that is why it is ‘true’ to say that pleasure is better than pain. It is a truism just like ‘Better means better’ is a truism.
Not as simple as you might think. Pleasure and pain are intricately bound up with sense-making oriented around personal goals and purposes. You cannot reliable produce rewards and punishments that motivate and shape the behavior of others without understanding their own interests , aims and ways of looking at the world. This insulates agains the idea of hedonism as effective behavioral control, because it only works in superficial and limited situations. Mind control is a Skinnerian myth.
We find nowadays a mass of people whose whole manner of life shows they no longer have five honest senses, let alone any precision. When the senses are used to falsification, and perception is distorted, one doubts any truthfulness in their pursuit of this so called hedonism.
Existential: Rollo May (Man's Search for Himself, The Meaning of Anxiety); Karen Horney (Neurosis and Human Growth).
Humanistic: Erich Fromm (The Sane Society,Escape From Freedom, The Art of Loving); Abraham Maslow (The Farther Reaches of Human Nature) (Maslow also founded transpersonal psychology - the most spiritually-minded branch - and integrated Buddhist notions: Religions, Values and Peak Experiences).
Positive Psychology (aiming at making healthy minds healthier): Seligman, Flourish.
Viennese Schools: Obviously Freud and Jung but Adler's valuable contribution is sometimes forgotten: Social Interest: A Challenge to Mankind.
They’re truisms because they come by their ‘truth’ by not saying anything new. Better, pleasure and desire mean the same thing and that is why it is ‘true’ to say that pleasure is better than pain. It is a truism just like ‘Better means better’ is a truism.
I beg to differ; there are some like me who don't, well, get it in a manner of speaking. The word "obvious" doesn't make sense to me at all. Daniel Dennett has more to say on the matter.
Funny in its oddness but true: Epicurus’ hedonism was pretty much about aiming to be an ascetic to obtain the greatest state of pleasure that could be obtained. From the last paragraph of this section at IEP:
An example of a natural but non-necessary desire is the desire for luxury food. Although food is needed for survival, one does not need a particular type of food to survive. Thus, despite his hedonism, Epicurus advocates a surprisingly ascetic way of life.
Emphasis mine. No indulgences in grandiose feasts or Roman orgies, or the like. Go figure.
And, from The University of Chicago Press, the more traditional rendition of Epicurus’ thoughts on the issue of sex (although, in fairness, the article argues that it is improperly translated): “They say that sex is never beneficial, and you are very lucky (or, “it is surprising”, or “it is marvelous”) if it does not do harm as well.”
[...] when asked "why it was that pupils from all the other schools went over to Epicurus, but converts were never made from the Epicureans?" [the Academic Skeptic, Arcesilaus] responded: "Because men may become eunuchs, but a eunuch never becomes a man."
… and this, I think, only gets the ball rolling.
At any rate, history has a weird way of sometimes distorting people’s views.
-------
But to remain on topic, as to the issue of letting go of hedonism:
Pleasure is obtained from that which pleases one. It is, tmk, impossible to do without. If it pleases one to do away with being pleased, there is yet the pleasure that awaits when this goal is reached, as well as the pleasure held in the active pursuit of this goal … if only one could figure out how to obtain it. But I don't see how one can.
Funny in its oddness but true: Epicurus’ hedonism was pretty much about aiming to be an ascetic to obtain the greatest state of pleasure that could be obtained.
Not really odd when you think about it. Many people think that true pleasure and happiness comes from moderation (rather than indulgence) and cutting out that which is unnecessary - hence the appeal of minimalism in this vulgar consumerist era.
Not really odd when you think about it. Many people think that true pleasure and happiness comes from moderation (rather than indulgence) and cutting out that which is unnecessary - hence the appeal of minimalism in this vulgar consumerist era.
:up: All things in moderation is, I think, a good motto. My thoughts were framed in terms of what Epicureanism has come to commonly signify today. Thought the same distortions of belief can be said of Cynicism, to not also get into Ancient Skepticism. :razz:
Many people think that true pleasure and happiness comes from moderation (rather than indulgence) and cutting out that which is unnecessary - hence the appeal of minimalism in this vulgar consumerist era.
As long as the intention behind one's consumption is the same (to satisfy a craving), it doesn't really matter whether one goes full blown hedonism or the moderate epicureanism. Epicureanism is just an anally retentive hedonism.
You can do this, you can give up lesser pleasures in the pursuit of better ones.
Yeah, it can be done but it's not exactly something an untrained person can pull off. The lower pleasures tend to, well, give more pleasure for a given amount of effort. If this weren't true, the world would be quite a different place, oui?
Was it John Stuart Mill who talked about higher and lower pleasures?
[quote=J. S. Mill]Better Socrates dissatisfied than a pig/fool staisfied.[/quote]
This statement has implications on the meaning of "better" we discussed.
In a sense, J. S. Mill planted a bomb inside the utilitarianism house - it went off a long time ago. No one's noticed it. How peculiar! How very peculiar!
You can do this, you can give up lesser pleasures in the pursuit of better ones.
— baker
Yeah, it can be done but it's not exactly something an untrained person can pull off.
If you prefer hot pizza over cold pizza, then you understand the principle of pursuing higher pleasures and are able to act on it. How consciously and how consistently is the matter at hand.
The lower pleasures tend to, well, give more pleasure for a given amount of effort.
In this case, you seem to be talking about, say, preferring classical music to rock music.
I'm not talking about such fixed scales. I'm talking about the aforementioned principle.
Epicureanism is just an anally retentive hedonism.
So in what light can we place the pleasurable of an ecstacy driven dance with follow up love affair when we consider this? Is it shit that's kept in or shat out?
Reply to Hillary It's shit -- to use even more shitty language -- retained at first and then later evacuated into a fancy toliet, at the time the evacuator chooses to do so.
It's shit -- to use even more shitty language -- retained at first and then later evacuated into a fancy toliet, at the time the evacuator chooses to do so.
I agree wholeheartedly that hedonism (pursuit of happiness & avoidance of suffering) isn't a philosophy we can afford to be flippant about, as of now that is; the future, however, could be radically different, oui?
A question that needs urgent attention:
Do things have value because they make us happy or do they make us happy because they have value? This is something I've been mulling over for the past 4 or so years.
Do things have value because they make us happy or do they make us happy because they have value?
Personally I don't think it much matters. But perhaps the only 'meaningful' response to such a question would be in locating happiness in the context of the transcendentals.
I think a good first step in the 'happiness' caper is reflecting upon what you think would make you happy and why this is. It might well be that money, mansions and fast cars (or any other cliché) actually don't matter to you - you might just want to be liked and you think that gaudy things will make that happen. Then of course you could reflect upon why you want to be liked and what that means. And on we go...
Do things have value because they make us happy or do they make us happy because they have value?
That seems a muddle (à la "Euthyphro"), Smith.
In my conception, one's habits cause one either to flourish (i.e. reduce suffering) or to languish (i.e. fail to reduce suffering or worse); the latter being much more common than the former and, thereby, is – like sickness (unsustainable) in comparison to fitness (sustainable) – of lesser and greater value, respectively.
You have a point! We know for certain (?) that pleasure is better than pain. What could be more desirable than pleasure in your opinion? My mind draws a blank. Is it the same for you?
This makes me think about the relationship between happiness and pleasure. They’re are arguments that posit that a life of unending pleasure may not lead to a happy life. Or, conversely, that a happy life likely requires suffering.
So, it may be that happiness is more desirable than pleasure. Simple longevity may be as well. Wouldn’t it be worth it to live say 1,000 years even if 300 of those are painful? 400 years?
There are different pleasures. Some more sophisticated than others, some with more harmful side-effects or consequences than others.
Understanding this principle, one would be prudent to opt for the less harmful pleasures, or to deliberately look for them in the first place.
Not sure if this is exactly what you’re alluding to, but not all pleasure is created equal. Yes, satiating your hunger is pleasurable, but doing so with carrots is vastly different than doing so with ice cream.
So to me, it’s more about determining what type of lifestyle you prefer. Oftentimes the most pleasurable pleasures also come with the greatest risk/harm, but some may deem the trade off acceptable. Of course others may not.
Pleasure is obtained from that which pleases one. It is, tmk, impossible to do without. If it pleases one to do away with being pleased, there is yet the pleasure that awaits when this goal is reached, as well as the pleasure held in the active pursuit of this goal … if only one could figure out how to obtain it. But I don't see how one can.
Maybe extreme desensitization would work? Conceivably one could list all the things that give them pleasure, and then proceed to consume them as much as possible. Eventually, the amount of pleasure derived from the experience would diminish over time. I’m not sure if it would ever reach a neutral state though. It also assumes that what we find pleasurable is static and unchanging.
This makes me think about the relationship between happiness and pleasure. They’re are arguments that posit that a life of unending pleasure may not lead to a happy life. Or, conversely, that a happy life likely requires suffering.
So, it may be that happiness is more desirable than pleasure. Simple longevity may be as well. Wouldn’t it be worth it to live say 1,000 years even if 300 of those are painful? 400 years?
It's true that happiness is distinct from pleasure and this I think undercuts hedonism (Epicurean axiology). As far as I can tell, there seems to a great deal of confusion in utilitarianism; the brain is, after all, a complicated organ, prone to self-deception of the first order. At any rate, it's not the brain's fault given it didn't choose to be what it is - a machine that would do anything, and I mean anything at all, to survive (evolutionarily speaking that is). C'est la vie!
[quote=Agent Smith]The brain is not for thinking; it is for survival.[/quote]
Comments (61)
One cannot let go of something unless one has something better to hold on to.
You have a point! We know for certain (?) that pleasure is better than pain. What could be more desirable than pleasure in your opinion? My mind draws a blank. Is it the same for you?
Gods? No pain, no happiness! :chin:
I was hoping you'd have the answer 180 Proof. There's got to be a way, oui? Does your contradiction-meter give a reading? Mine does not, but that maybe because it's :broken: I'm used to contradictions in that I wouldn't be wrong if I said I've been exposed to a lethal dose of antinomies! Logic bombs going off in that thing between your ears ain't exactly a fun experience. I digress...or do I?
Nothing is better than pleasure! Sayonara Epicurus. See you when you get there!
Sunyata! Nirvana!
:ok: Good to know and muchas gracias.
There are different pleasures. Some more sophisticated than others, some with more harmful side-effects or consequences than others.
Understanding this principle, one would be prudent to opt for the less harmful pleasures, or to deliberately look for them in the first place.
Good call! Merci beaucoup. Anything else?
These seem to be truisms. ‘Better’ is synonymous with ‘pleasure’ , which is synonymous with what we desire or prefer. What could be more desirable that what we desire? What could be better than that which we prefer?
What’s needed here is an explanation of the basis of preference in terms of the organizational dynamics of perception and cognitionn. For instance, we could connect that which is desirable in terms of the goal-directedness of anticipatory sense-making.
So, they're true. Sorry if I'm a bit slow, nothing's obvious to me at all.
Quoting Joshs
Indeed! So, we could say nothing is more pleasurable (better) than pleasure which then takes us back to square one. I wish I could say more. This is baffling I tell you. Are we on the same page or not?
A maze of ideas/words, I'm flummoxed!
Yes. See Behavior Analysis and the concept of replacement behaviors (fulfilling behaviors that are incompatible with the target behavior) - crucial for ridding oneself of unwanted habits.
For example, the desire to remember more of what one reads is incompatible with toking up day and night. And the intellectual accumulations are far more fulfilling than the hedonistic oblivion of THC.
Much appreciated! Psychology, one of my favorite subjects. Unfortunately, it seems I haven't put in the right effort (8- fold path). Woe is me! Can you refer me to a crash course website on psychology? Danke.
Tools of manipulation? :chin:
Who in his right mind would endorse hedonism?
Either you're manipulated or you're manipulating.
Both not exactly things one would want.
Tertium quid?
For behavior analysis - connected to Skinner's behaviorism; proven to be successful in the field with problem behaviors of all kinds, especially those rooted in autism - probably the wiki has most of the basic concepts.
Great! I was hoping for a psychology for dummies kinda respectable tome :smile: . I guess I'll have to do it the hard way then.
https://www.amazon.com/Psychology-Dummies-Adam-Cash/dp/1118603591
I would guess for most people, two or three names or subfields of psychology resonate the most. Just have to locate your favored subfields/names.
:up:
They’re truisms because they come by their ‘truth’ by not saying anything new. Better, pleasure and desire mean the same thing and that is why it is ‘true’ to say that pleasure is better than pain. It is a truism just like ‘Better means better’ is a truism.
Not as simple as you might think. Pleasure and pain are intricately bound up with sense-making oriented around personal goals and purposes. You cannot reliable produce rewards and punishments that motivate and shape the behavior of others without understanding their own interests , aims and ways of looking at the world. This insulates agains the idea of hedonism as effective behavioral control, because it only works in superficial and limited situations. Mind control is a Skinnerian myth.
Quoting skyblack
We find nowadays a mass of people whose whole manner of life shows they no longer have five honest senses, let alone any precision. When the senses are used to falsification, and perception is distorted, one doubts any truthfulness in their pursuit of this so called hedonism.
Some of my faves:
Existential: Rollo May (Man's Search for Himself, The Meaning of Anxiety); Karen Horney (Neurosis and Human Growth).
Humanistic: Erich Fromm (The Sane Society, Escape From Freedom, The Art of Loving); Abraham Maslow (The Farther Reaches of Human Nature) (Maslow also founded transpersonal psychology - the most spiritually-minded branch - and integrated Buddhist notions: Religions, Values and Peak Experiences).
Positive Psychology (aiming at making healthy minds healthier): Seligman, Flourish.
Viennese Schools: Obviously Freud and Jung but Adler's valuable contribution is sometimes forgotten: Social Interest: A Challenge to Mankind.
Quoting Joshs
Quoting Joshs
I beg to differ; there are some like me who don't, well, get it in a manner of speaking. The word "obvious" doesn't make sense to me at all. Daniel Dennett has more to say on the matter.
Funny in its oddness but true: Epicurus’ hedonism was pretty much about aiming to be an ascetic to obtain the greatest state of pleasure that could be obtained. From the last paragraph of this section at IEP:
Quoting https://iep.utm.edu/epicur/#SH5a
Emphasis mine. No indulgences in grandiose feasts or Roman orgies, or the like. Go figure.
And, from The University of Chicago Press, the more traditional rendition of Epicurus’ thoughts on the issue of sex (although, in fairness, the article argues that it is improperly translated): “They say that sex is never beneficial, and you are very lucky (or, “it is surprising”, or “it is marvelous”) if it does not do harm as well.”
From which you get this:
Quoting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epicureanism#Criticism
… and this, I think, only gets the ball rolling.
At any rate, history has a weird way of sometimes distorting people’s views.
-------
But to remain on topic, as to the issue of letting go of hedonism:
Pleasure is obtained from that which pleases one. It is, tmk, impossible to do without. If it pleases one to do away with being pleased, there is yet the pleasure that awaits when this goal is reached, as well as the pleasure held in the active pursuit of this goal … if only one could figure out how to obtain it. But I don't see how one can.
Not really odd when you think about it. Many people think that true pleasure and happiness comes from moderation (rather than indulgence) and cutting out that which is unnecessary - hence the appeal of minimalism in this vulgar consumerist era.
:up: All things in moderation is, I think, a good motto. My thoughts were framed in terms of what Epicureanism has come to commonly signify today. Thought the same distortions of belief can be said of Cynicism, to not also get into Ancient Skepticism. :razz:
Yes, for some it means pretentious gluttony and fat restaurant reviewers. :gasp:
Great post! Danke.
The Mind-Body Gap
According to our bodies, we're ~35k years old (Cro-Magnons)
According to our minds, we're way older than that!
Species IQ, the old fashioned way [math]\frac{Mental \space Age}{Physical \space Age} \times 100[/math]
[quote=Socrates]The body is the prison of the soul.[/quote]
Our minds can think of things that are physically impossible as of now. That's a mixed blessing (uplifting & disappointing).
As long as the intention behind one's consumption is the same (to satisfy a craving), it doesn't really matter whether one goes full blown hedonism or the moderate epicureanism. Epicureanism is just an anally retentive hedonism.
Dear mother of god... Is the the soothing pleasure of the gods-given Papaveraceae degraded to anal retention here?
That's a witty line. :wink:
Yeah, it can be done but it's not exactly something an untrained person can pull off. The lower pleasures tend to, well, give more pleasure for a given amount of effort. If this weren't true, the world would be quite a different place, oui?
Was it John Stuart Mill who talked about higher and lower pleasures?
[quote=J. S. Mill]Better Socrates dissatisfied than a pig/fool staisfied.[/quote]
This statement has implications on the meaning of "better" we discussed.
In a sense, J. S. Mill planted a bomb inside the utilitarianism house - it went off a long time ago. No one's noticed it. How peculiar! How very peculiar!
If you prefer hot pizza over cold pizza, then you understand the principle of pursuing higher pleasures and are able to act on it. How consciously and how consistently is the matter at hand.
In this case, you seem to be talking about, say, preferring classical music to rock music.
I'm not talking about such fixed scales. I'm talking about the aforementioned principle.
Eh? You?! Talk about religion being the opiate of the people!
And "soothing pleasure"? All intoxicants sooner or later show their ugly side.
The people are free to choose their own opiate, brought to them by the dealer of choice.
Quoting baker
So does life, brother baker.
So in what light can we place the pleasurable of an ecstacy driven dance with follow up love affair when we consider this? Is it shit that's kept in or shat out?
The evacuator! :lol:
:point: Quoting 180 Proof
I agree wholeheartedly that hedonism (pursuit of happiness & avoidance of suffering) isn't a philosophy we can afford to be flippant about, as of now that is; the future, however, could be radically different, oui?
A question that needs urgent attention:
Do things have value because they make us happy or do they make us happy because they have value? This is something I've been mulling over for the past 4 or so years.
Personally I don't think it much matters. But perhaps the only 'meaningful' response to such a question would be in locating happiness in the context of the transcendentals.
I think a good first step in the 'happiness' caper is reflecting upon what you think would make you happy and why this is. It might well be that money, mansions and fast cars (or any other cliché) actually don't matter to you - you might just want to be liked and you think that gaudy things will make that happen. Then of course you could reflect upon why you want to be liked and what that means. And on we go...
The parable of the arrow
That seems a muddle (à la "Euthyphro"), Smith.
In my conception, one's habits cause one either to flourish (i.e. reduce suffering) or to languish (i.e. fail to reduce suffering or worse); the latter being much more common than the former and, thereby, is – like sickness (unsustainable) in comparison to fitness (sustainable) – of lesser and greater value, respectively.
I like your philosophy.
The right to pursue happiness should be replaced, for the time being, with The right to flee suffering. In short aponia.
What's stopping you?
Nothing! :snicker: Thanks for asking the right question.
Good point! I'll give it due consideration. Perhaps, I'm an idiot!
Merci beaucoup, monsieur.
I really do feel like a dick, posting here, sometimes.
[quote=Ranjeet]A thousand apologies.[/quote]
This makes me think about the relationship between happiness and pleasure. They’re are arguments that posit that a life of unending pleasure may not lead to a happy life. Or, conversely, that a happy life likely requires suffering.
So, it may be that happiness is more desirable than pleasure. Simple longevity may be as well. Wouldn’t it be worth it to live say 1,000 years even if 300 of those are painful? 400 years?
Quoting baker
Not sure if this is exactly what you’re alluding to, but not all pleasure is created equal. Yes, satiating your hunger is pleasurable, but doing so with carrots is vastly different than doing so with ice cream.
So to me, it’s more about determining what type of lifestyle you prefer. Oftentimes the most pleasurable pleasures also come with the greatest risk/harm, but some may deem the trade off acceptable. Of course others may not.
Quoting javra
Maybe extreme desensitization would work? Conceivably one could list all the things that give them pleasure, and then proceed to consume them as much as possible. Eventually, the amount of pleasure derived from the experience would diminish over time. I’m not sure if it would ever reach a neutral state though. It also assumes that what we find pleasurable is static and unchanging.
It's true that happiness is distinct from pleasure and this I think undercuts hedonism (Epicurean axiology). As far as I can tell, there seems to a great deal of confusion in utilitarianism; the brain is, after all, a complicated organ, prone to self-deception of the first order. At any rate, it's not the brain's fault given it didn't choose to be what it is - a machine that would do anything, and I mean anything at all, to survive (evolutionarily speaking that is). C'est la vie!
[quote=Agent Smith]The brain is not for thinking; it is for survival.[/quote]
:snicker: