The Hedonistic Infinity And The Hedonistic Loop

There is indeed an infinite regress there, and that is precisely why the normative equivalents of justificationism would be absurd; there is likewise a similar infinite regress about beliefs that makes epistemic justificationism equally absurd. But nevertheless, it still makes sense to wonder what it is about something that makes it seem good to you (or makes it seem true to you). You may not have an answer, but if you do then I’ve learned more about the details of your thoughts by asking.

Why would you call this a fallacy?

As far as I understand Hedonism it is that life should be judged through pleasure and pain - obviously with the aim of maximising the former!

I’m here for punishment :D

Because it is specifically an example of the fallacy of division?

Why are you here Pantagruel?

LOL! I presume you just read why in the other thread and this is banter

As long as one always give a reason for one's pleasure, the question why the reason you gave makes one experience pleasure can be asked.

Yes, that is the essence of criticizability in general. It's what makes rationality possible!

Edit:
I think it isn't clear that pleasure is the only or highest desideratum. Many moral philosophers believe the apperception of duty through recognition of obligations and rights to be an elevated type of experience. I think I'm rather of that ilk. I don't believe my answer on the other thread (which was just the question "why are you here") depended in any way on the concept of pleasure.

Just because you can ask an infinity of questions, that doesn't make hedonism either infinite or looped. What makes you think that it does? You can ask an infinite number of questions about anything.

think the issue here is subjectivity. If I were able to give you an objective, physical, explanation of why X is pleasurable, I think it would end the regress. An example of this type of explanation would be to explain that your brain reacts in a specific way to a specific stimuli which causes the subjective experience of pleasure. Of course, we’re not able to give these types of explanations at this time because we aren’t aware of what our brains are doing physically. And it is that reason that when we are asked for an explanation that we just point to some other quality of the object. One the one hand we give the wrong answer, but on the other hand, asking “why” doesn’t make sense. We should instead ask “how.”

If I say that something, say x, gives me pleasure, it is perfectly ok for someone to ask me "what about x gives me pleasure?" Pfhorrest asked me that exact question. From this it's a small step to the next question "what about that about x, that gives me pleasure, gives me pleasure?" The third question is wating in the wings and so is a fourth and a fifth...ad infinitum.

For the latter, we need to think deep and hard for we're always in unmapped territory.

So what? What do you conclude from that?

It certainly does not mean that pleasure is infinite, nor even infinitely reducible.

Not to speak for Fool, but I would conclude that there simply is no essence of pleasure. IOW’s it can’t be reduced at all. It is what it is.

Or because we are desperately trying to justify our choices, feelings, etc. after the fact. We’re simply making it up as we go, because we’re unable to access the true causes of our actions, beliefs, etc. We aren’t aware of the cause (what our brain is doing), but we are aware of the effect (subjective experience X). It seems that our brains are wired to seek causes, but since the cause lies outside our perception, we seek elsewhere. I think the lengths we will go to justify our actions, etc. are apparent to anyone paying attention.

So what? What do you conclude from that?

It certainly does not mean that pleasure is infinite, nor even infinitely reducible.

However, there's absolutely nothing wrong in asking P the question: what about rationality is pleasurable? P then might reply that the fact that rationality ensures not losing touch with reality makes rationality pleasurable. Can no more questions concerning Hedonism be asked to P? To my surprise, it seems we can ask another question to P: what about not losing touch with reality is pleasurable? P might have a perfectly reasonable reply but whatever constitutes that reply, we can always ask what about it (content of the reply) P finds pleasurable? So on and so forth, ad infinitum.

Beyond these concrete forms of beauty, there are also more abstract aspects to beauty, to be found in the form or structure of a phenomenon (be it natural or a work of art) rather than in its relation to reality or morality, though this abstract sense of beauty also factors into the concrete kinds discussed above. This is beauty as in elegance, which is to say, the intersection of a phenomenon being interestingly complex, but also comprehensibly simple. Complexity draws one's attention into the phenomenon, seeking to understand it; and if that complexity is found to emerge from an underlying simplicity, beauty can be experienced in the successful comprehension of that complexity by way of the underlying simplicity. That is to say, symmetries and other patterns, that allow us to reduce a complex phenomenon to many instances and variations of simpler phenomena, are inherently beautiful in an abstract way detached entirely from whether the phenomena are concretely real or moral. This is the kind of beauty to be found in abstract, non-representational art, and also in places besides art such as in mathematical structures.

The tension here between interesting complexity and comprehensible simplicity is, I think, what underlies the distinction many artists, audiences, and philosophers have made between what they call "high art" and "low art". Those who prefer so-called "high art" are those with enough experience with the kinds of patterns used in their preferred media that they are able to comprehend more complex phenomena than those less experienced, but simultaneously find simpler phenomena correspondingly uninteresting. Those who prefer so-called "low art" (so called by the "high art" aficionados, not by themselves) instead find more complex phenomena incomprehensible, but are simultaneously more capable of taking interest in simpler phenomena. Unlike the attitudes evinced in the traditional naming of these categories, I do not think that "high art", a taste for complex phenomena, is in any way inherently better than "low art", a taste for simple phenomena. In each case, the aficionados of one are capable of appreciating something that the other group cannot, while incapable of appreciating something that the other group can. In my opinion, if any manner of taste was truly to be called objectively superior, it would be a broader taste, capable of comprehending complex phenomena and so appreciating "high art", while still remaining capable of finding simple phenomena interesting and so appreciating "low art". In that way, audiences with such taste would be best capable of deriving the most enjoyment from the widest assortment of phenomena, both natural and artistic.

That's all very clever, lol, but I guess you run into problems with how OTHER philosophers define pleasure,

Hence I think it difficult for you to defend that philosophy is hedonistic

S that means, I guess, you are also at odds with Wittgenstein. Well whatever, I do wish you well on your pursuit. If it gives you an erection to talk about philosophy, I couldnt be happier for you! lol

What about X does A find pleasurable?

X.

End of regress.

Why does there have to be a why? It ends here.

Yes. that would end the regress but you don't know WHY? X makes you happy.

Like you pointed out, maybe if something makes one feel pleasure then, that's all there is to it; it may not be possible to pin down what about that something causes one's pleasure.

However, note that there's always something that causes (gives) pleasure. Pleasure can't be experienced without engaging in something. I mean I can't simply decide one fine day that I want to feel pleasure and by that desire alone start experiencing pleasure.

Talking of infinite loops. Have a chat with a compulsive gambler, who may be a close friend of the compulsive arguer.

Why do you gamble?
Because I like winning.
But you are losing thousands overall.
But I win sometimes.

Thus the philosopher of hedonism comes to notice that the reason one does something and the result of doing it may not always be identical.

Why do people have accidents?

And why does posting that post make you happy?

I guess to elaborate a bit, I would say that it’s the effect of the “something” that makes it pleasurable; the effect being that it stimulates your brain in a particular way. And this would be true of all pleasures; high or low.

Right, but anything can be pleasurable if it stimulates your brain in a particular way. I think asking why something stimulates your brain in this way is a nonsensical question akin to asking why hydrogen and oxygen molecules can combine to form water.

Like you said, happiness is an "effect".

And why does posting that post make you happy? — A Seagull
That's exactly the type of question that kickstarts the hedonistic infinity.

Yes, happiness is caused and hence it's perfectly reasonable to ask what it is about something that makes one happy.

Like you said, happiness is an "effect". Why should inquiring about the cause be nonsensical?

Indeed. And circularity results from conflating the imagined effect as cause of action with the actual effect as result of action.

I act to realise an imagined happy result. Thus it helps to have a realistic imagination. A good architect has a realistic imagination to the extent that her buildings don't immediately fall down, whereas a gambling addict has an unrealistic imagination, such that his imagined winnings materialise as losses

Well is there ANYTHING that cannot be made into an infinity in this way? Give me an example.

No matter how things may turn out, the winner and loser (gambling analogy) both want pleasure

If you make this a universal truth, and you certainly can do that, you are not saying very much.

The masochist wants the pleasure of pain; the altruist wants the pleasure of being unselfish; the suicide wants the pleasure of non-existence. It becomes a bit vacuous. Hedonism is no longer a way of life that one can follow (or not), but simply a grammatical necessity. Do you want to talk about the pleasure of dying for your country? It sounds a bit daft to me

All acts are hedonistic acts

What this means is that 'hedonistic act' becomes an oxymoron.

All sugar is sweet. So no-one bothers to advertise "sweet sugar", because there is no other kind.

But there are many different kinds of act, and kinds of motivation. So let's not pretend that there is no difference between wanting to please one's partner, and wanting to please oneself. There is a difference.

Thanks but you're referring to analytic truths (did I get that right?).

All acts are hedonistic acts is not an analytic truth. Looks like a synthetic truth claim to me.

Well is there ANYTHING that cannot be made into an infinity in this way? Give me an example. — A Seagull
That I don't have to do so long as you accept hedonism leads to an infinity of causes for happiness.

The cause maybe some neurochemical phenonmenon but the reason is what triggers it. For instance, if someone derives pleasure from philosophy, the reason maybe because of the importance it gives to rationality; this reason then becomes the cause of the neurochemical phenonmenon we call pleasure.

If philosophy is pleasurable it is because doing philosophy causes certain mental states that cause the experience of pleasure.

Consider pain. Would you argue that there is a reason getting cut is painful? You could claim that getting cut is painful because it punctures the skin, but that is still just a cause, and really just replacing the word cut with a synonym, so you aren’t getting any closer to some foundation or essence of pain

As I have pointed out before happiness is. End of story.

Your idea of infini9ty of causes or at least an infinity of questions can be applied to any idea. Your failure to provide a viable counter example shows that you implicitly agree with me, albeit perhaps not consciously.

In contrast, for higher pleasures, there usually are reasons for why they are pleasurable. For instance people may find art pleasing because of style, theme, the interplay of colors, the message contained therein, etc.

I’m not convinced that’s true. If a category, like art, is pleasurable it is most likely because of the various parts that “art” contains; style, theme, etc. However, I don’t think that any one part can be said to cause pleasure, it is the combination of all the parts that make it pleasurable. I’m not even sure if it’s possible to experience these parts in isolation. A piece of art necessarily contains a style, theme, etc. You can’t experience only a style with no theme, and vice versa. I think the same holds true for any intellectual form of pleasure. Philosophy necessarily includes things like logical analysis, so it may be tempting to point to something like this as the reason it is pleasurable, but logical analysis necessarily includes content/subject matter. They’re inseparable from one another, just like all the parts that make up philosophy or art, or whatever.

It isn't hard to understand the idea of the hedonistic infinity. Consider anything you like or find pleasurable but do keep to higher pleasures - things that engage the intellect, aesthetic sense, etc.; then ask yourself why you find that thing plesaurable. You will have an answer. Ask the same question of that answer and so on.

You are repeating yourself. Presumably you can do this endlessly

You are repeating yourself. Presumably you can do this endlessly — A Seagull

Since infinity is endless, it follows that it's impossible to ever know what exactly it is about the things we find pleasurable that makes these things pleasurable.

A Seagull ?

Well, true to what I said, you gave some reasons for why art or philosophy is pleasurable. The same applies to all higher pleasures in that they possess some qualities that afford pleasure to us.