2
   

I am looking for a hedonistic debate

 
 
MozartLink
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Apr, 2015 02:03 pm
@argome321,
I'm not sure what you even mean here. Do you mean to say that, for example, if there was someone or something good in my life, that I am simply saying that said thing is not good at all and that it is only my feelings of pleasure that are good since they are the only good experiences for me in my life? If that is so, then even though my family and other things in my life might very well be good despite my absence of pleasure, then what good is that for me though? I cannot experience anything good from them. Pleasure is the only good experience as I've said before and I would be now doing nothing more than living my life like some human robot simply recognizing things in my life as beautiful and great when the fact of the matter is that there is no good experience from any of those beautiful and great things in my life. I cannot experience the beauty and greatness of those things at all without my feelings of pleasure.
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Apr, 2015 02:24 pm
@MozartLink,
I cant follow where you have gone wrong but I do know that hedonistic pleasure is always about the intake of positive nerve stimulation, normally taken to gluttony, and that this is not required for the good life. Many in pursuit of the good life aggressively limit nerve stimulation.
0 Replies
 
argome321
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Apr, 2015 03:08 pm
@MozartLink,
Before I go further let me ask you this...

...Do you think that pleasure is the only true good thing in life? Then you have to ask yourself why some people who want to escape pain only seek to be numb?

What about a balance life...would that not be a true good thing in life?

Why do we feel empathy?

If pleasure is the only good thing it life why is the pursuit of it in the extremes dangerous? How could it ever become a negative thing...but in excess it does?

argome321
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Apr, 2015 03:49 pm
@argome321,
I can't believe you would consider using meth a truly good thing in life no matter how much pleasure one got from it. I'm not talking about morality either. I'm talking about the physical damage that it causes.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Apr, 2015 04:10 pm
@MozartLink,
Albert Schweitzer was interested in self-gratification and self-satisfaction; Mother Theresa was interested in self-gratification and self-satisfaction...all the saints and martyrs of history were also.

Everyone is interesting in satisfying self...even a masochist.

I'm not sure I understand the point you are trying to make.
0 Replies
 
MozartLink
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Apr, 2015 04:58 pm
@argome321,
I have lost all my feelings of pleasure due to anhedonia which is a negative symptom of schizoprhenia. I really do believe that pleasure is the only good thing in life. As for the reason why people wish to feel numb, it would be because being numb is better than being in a state of suffering. But still, you would be in a neutral state and not in a good state if you didn't have your feelings of pleasure.

Now there is the moral version of good and bad and there is the feeling version of good and bad. So even though it could very well be morally good to have a balance in life and other things, without our feelings of pleasure, then we would instead be living for something else that is good in life separate from our own conscious brains. But since our conscious is what defines our very lives since it is the very thing that makes us alive in the first place, then it all comes back to our conscious defining our own lives as good. Therefore, since pleasure is the only good conscious experience, then us living for other good things in life without our feelings of pleasure wouldn't make our lives good at all.
argome321
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Apr, 2015 08:01 pm
@MozartLink,
Re: argome321 (Post 5936663)
Quote:
I have lost all my feelings of pleasure due to anhedonia which is a negative symptom of schizoprhenia. I really do believe that pleasure is the only good thing in life. As for the reason why people wish to feel numb, it would be because being numb is better than being in a state of suffering. But still, you would be in a neutral state and not in a good state if you didn't have your feelings of pleasure.


This claim is debatable and mere speculative nor scientific. Because many people who get constantly stoned are not truly in pain, they just prefer to be numb.


Quote:
Now there is the moral version of good and bad and there is the feeling version of good and bad. So even though it could very well be morally good to have a balance in life and other things, without our feelings of pleasure, then we would instead be living for something else that is good in life separate from our own conscious brains. But since our conscious is what defines our very lives since it is the very thing that makes us alive in the first place, then it all comes back to our conscious defining our own lives as good. Therefore, since pleasure is the only good conscious experience, then us living for other good things in life without our feelings of pleasure wouldn't make our lives good at all.


First Let's both agree we know the difference between moral good and bad and labeling what feels good or bad to us so we don't repeat ourselves.

Saying that, what makes us feel good or bad is still subjective and has nothing to do what is truly good for us objectively.

Eating ice cream makes me feel good, I have a caving for ice cream, that doesn't make it truly good for me.

People who enjoy pain, who love to be masochistic, who enjoy doling out pain and suffering to others is that truly a god thing in life?

This is what I meant by interpretation. The brain can let us know what pleases us, and that is on an individual basis, and it can not tell us if it truly good when it comes to what is truly good in life.

And to construct a philosophy on this idea that pleasure is the truly good thing in life, as the sole purpose for one's existence, is limiting one experiences in life.

it may prove that there is another thing, that has nothing to do with pleasurable, that is truly needed more so than pleasure, like learning how to survive. Like education. Learning the tools of survival isn't always pleasurable but necessary and in most cases, if not all, a truly good thing in life.
MozartLink
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Apr, 2015 08:15 pm
@argome321,
But all that wouldn't be a good conscious experience without our feelings of pleasure. We may recognize other things as good in our lives without our feelings of pleasure, but there is still no good experience whatsoever from those things. Our conscious defines our own personal lives and since pleasure is the only good experience, then even though we can live for other good things in life without our pleasure, the fact of the matter is that there is no good experience from that and our lives would actually not have personal good value. A good thought would then be no different than a bad thought or any other thought. They are different in the sense that they are obviously different thoughts. But they are all still nothing more than just thoughts. They are all nothing more than the "thinking" experience and to tell ourselves the message that there are other good things in our lives to live for without our feelings of pleasure, then that doesn't change the fact that this is nothing more than just some thought. It doesn't change the experience whatsoever for you in your life.
argome321
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Apr, 2015 08:20 pm
@MozartLink,
But all that wouldn't be a good conscious experience without our feelings of
Quote:
pleasure. We may recognize other things as good in our lives without our feelings of pleasure, but there is still no good experience whatsoever from those things. Our conscious defines our own personal lives and since pleasure is the only good experience, then even though we can live for other good things in life without our pleasure, the fact of the matter is that there is no good experience from that and our lives would actually not have personal good value. A good thought would then be no different than a bad thought or any other thought. They are different in the sense that they are obviously different thoughts. But they are all still nothing more than just thoughts. They are all nothing more than the "thinking" experience and to tell ourselves the message that there are other good things in our lives to live for without our feelings of pleasure, then that doesn't change the fact that this is nothing more than just some thought. It doesn't change the experience whatsoever for you in your life.



No, it could be a rational logical one... not an emotional one... which pleasure is.
MozartLink
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Apr, 2015 08:22 pm
@argome321,
Our thoughts cannot be any other experience besides thoughts. To say that our thoughts can be a form of pleasure would be no different than saying that our thoughts can be a form of hearing or sight without our actual hearing or sight.
argome321
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Apr, 2015 08:26 pm
@MozartLink,
Quote:
Our thoughtation of the data, the thought.s cannot be any other experience besides thoughts. To say that our thoughts can be a form of pleasure would be no different than saying that our thoughts can be a form of hearing or sight without our actual hearing or sight.


Once again you're confusing the interpretation. Emotions move us. How we interpret and handle them is another thing. And thoughts do give us pleasure and other things
.
The thought of debate may give you pleasure or pain..,anticipation, nerves etc.
MozartLink
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Apr, 2015 08:31 pm
@argome321,
Thoughts can only give us pleasure when we have our feelings of pleasure. Otherwise, they are nothing more than the experience of just thoughts without our feelings of pleasure. I do not understand how I am misinterpreting here. If you could explain to me how it is even possible for our thoughts to be an experience of pleasure, then I would be glad to listen.
argome321
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Apr, 2015 08:56 pm
@MozartLink,
Quote:
Thoughts can only give us pleasure when we have our feelings of pleasure. Otherwise, they are nothing more than the experience of just thoughts without our feelings of pleasure. I do noteted understand how I am misinterpreting here. If you could explain to me how it is even possible for our thoughts to be an experience of pleasure, then I would be glad to listen.


Something has too happen... and then interpreted. that requires more than feelings.

To answer your question about thoughts without feeling pleasure ..Well you need to examine the creative mind.

Maybe you should read about Helen Keller.

from wikipedia:

Quote:
Critics of hedonism have objected to its exclusive concentration on pleasure as valuable. In particular, G. E. Moore offered a thought experiment in criticism of pleasure as the sole bearer of value: he imagined two worlds - one of exceeding beauty and the other a heap of filth. Neither of these worlds will be experienced by anyone. The question, then, is if it is better for the beautiful world to exist than the heap of filth. In this Moore implied that states of affairs have value beyond conscious pleasure, which he said spoke against the validity of hedonism.[32]



MozartLink
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Apr, 2015 09:06 pm
@argome321,
It would be our thoughts and such that perceives those things as good or bad. But none of what you are saying actually changes the experience of any of those thoughts over to an experience of pleasure without our actual feelings of pleasure just like how having the thought of hearing or sight if we are blind or deaf can never change the experience of those thoughts over to an experience of sight or hearing.

But the version of good that comes from our thoughts and such is different than the version that comes from our feelings of pleasure. Feelings of pleasure are just simply a feeling version of good. They feel good. Simply put. It has nothing to do with us attributing any good value to them. They always feel good in of themselves. Then we have the thought (moral) version of good which is all just nothing more than just the experience of thoughts without our feelings of pleasure.
argome321
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Apr, 2015 10:18 pm
@MozartLink,
It would be our thoughts and such that perceives those things as good or bad. But none of what you are saying actually changes the experience of any of those
Quote:
thoughts over to an experience of pleasure without our actual feelings of pleasure just like how having the thought of hearing or sight if we are blind or deaf can never change the experience of those thoughts over to an experience of sight or hearing.

But the version of good that comes from our thoughts and such is different than the version that comes from our feelings of pleasure. Feelings of pleasure are just simply a feeling version of good. They feel good. Simply put. It has nothing to do with us attributing any good value to them. They always feel good in of themselves. Then we have the thought (moral) version of good which is all just nothing more than just the experience of thoughts without our feelings of pleasure.


i see you keep repeating your double talk.

I'm going to try this last time.

I eat ice cream... it gives me pleasure. The thought of eating more ice cream quickly dissipates my pleasure,.all from experiencing this one single act.

We do put values to them because we a thinking and growing mentally human beings.

from your posted site

Quote:
In conclusion, even if we somehow could experience pleasure or suffering from our thoughts, perceptions, and everything else, then that could only be if we had our actual feelings of pleasure and suffering to do so. Otherwise, we wouldn't be able to experience any form of pleasure or suffering without our actual feelings of pleasure or suffering.


How so when our senses only give us a limited view of the external world..and
our view at best is an internal view piece together by our brain. W e react to how we image the world to be.


Quote:
In conclusion, I am making these arguments to try and help find better cures and treatments for anhedonia and depression. If people would realize that pleasure and suffering are the only true good and bad things in life, then they would be much more inclined to find better treatments and a cure. Too many people are just accepting of suffering due to them thinking that they are still good people even with much suffering and/or an absence of pleasure in their lives. But I wish to change this mindset so that people would then truly realize once and for all the pleasure and suffering really are the only true good and bad things in life. Not only am I trying to find better treatments and cures for depression and anhedonia, but also for suffering in general. My hedonistic values would also encourage others to find better treatments and cures for suffering in general as well. This would also even include mortality since living in an eternal blissful life of no suffering is the one and only greatest life there is and is the one and only thing that would make you the greatest person.


1)This is a well intended plea not a fact of science.
2)Morality for many is subjective and relative.
3)I think a person with bi-polar would disagree with this conclusion or some one coming down from a high as well.

Objective thought is not depend on solely pleasure, pleasure could be absent. Neither is all inspiration, many times thought it is dependent on the opposite without having experience pleasure. Fear is a great motivator.
Ask many of artist.

So where is the scientific a proof, the empirical data to support your position, I don't want to read suppositions?
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Apr, 2015 10:24 pm
Point of Order please.

Isnt this argument with a person who claims to have a certified miswired brain a complete time waster?

Too bad, the question of what is the good life is one that I would love to explore more. I am finding that age changes my perception and my values big time, which I find to be completely fascinating.
0 Replies
 
MozartLink
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Apr, 2015 02:48 am
@argome321,
"i see you keep repeating your double talk.

I'm going to try this last time.

I eat ice cream... it gives me pleasure. The thought of eating more ice cream quickly dissipates my pleasure,.all from experiencing this one single act.

We do put values to them because we a thinking and growing mentally human beings. "

Yes, it would have value and it would have bad value to keep on eating ice cream and other things can have good moral value as well. But what you are not understanding here is that these moral values do not change the conscious experience of our thoughts over to an experience of pleasure without our feelings of pleasure. Pleasure is scientific just like how hearing and sight are scientific in that they can only be specific functions of our brains. Hearing and sight are not personal defined moral values and cannot be our thoughts alone since that is not something scientific. Therefore, pleasure also can't be something we personally define in life either and can't be our thoughts alone either since that is also something not scientific.

The thought of eating ice cream might of dissipated your pleasure, but the thought itself was not pleasure or displeasure without our actual feelings of pleasure or displeasure. If you just had thoughts alone without any feelings of pleasure or suffering, then they would all just be thoughts.
0 Replies
 
MozartLink
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Apr, 2015 03:32 am
@argome321,
I will make one more important point here in addition to my previous post which I also want you to reply to as well since that is very important for you to reply to. I wish to say here that we can personally define our thoughts and other things in life as being pleasure just like how we could personally define our thoughts and other things in life as hearing or sight. But that still doesn't change what our thoughts are. That still doesn't change the experience of our thoughts in that they are all the "thinking" experience of our brains and can't be the experience of sight, hearing, pleasure, smell, etc. Same thing if we personally defined our own happiness and joy in life without our feelings of pleasure. That personal defined happiness and joy is not going to change the "thinking" experience of our thoughts. This "thinking" experience cannot be any other experience as I've said before and it can't be any experience of pleasure, happiness, or joy. As I said before, it is all nothing more than the experience of a thought of pleasure, joy, and happiness and not the actual experience of any pleasure, joy, and happiness without our actual feelings of those things.
izzythepush
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Apr, 2015 03:43 am
@MozartLink,
Chaucer's Wife of Bath's prologue and tale is as good a study of hedonism as any.

http://classiclit.about.com/library/bl-etexts/gchaucer/bl-gchau-can-bath-m.htm
0 Replies
 
argome321
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Apr, 2015 06:19 am
@MozartLink,
I will make one more important point here in addition to my previous post
Quote:
which I also want you to reply to as well since that is very important for you to reply to. I wish to say here that we can personally define our thoughts and other things in life as being pleasure just like how we could personally define our thoughts and other things in life as hearing or sight. But that still doesn't change what our thoughts are. That still doesn't change the experience of our thoughts in that they are all the "thinking" experience of our brains and can't be the experience of sight, hearing, pleasure, smell, etc. Same thing if we personally defined our own happiness and joy in life without our feelings of pleasure. That personal defined happiness and joy is not going to change the "thinking" experience of our thoughts. This "thinking" experience cannot be any other experience as I've said before and it can't be any experience of pleasure, happiness, or joy. As I said before, it is all nothing more than the experience of a thought of pleasure, joy, and happiness and not the actual experience of any pleasure, joy, and happiness without our actual feelings of those things.


Still repeating the same rhetoric is not answering the question. Where is this scientific evidence? I asked you to demonstrate this empirical evidence. I take it you have none.
You wanted a debate so you don't get to bypass this question.
 

Related Topics

New Propulsion, the "EM Drive" - Question by TomTomBinks
The Science Thread - Discussion by Wilso
Why do people deny evolution? - Question by JimmyJ
Are we alone in the universe? - Discussion by Jpsy
Fake Science Journals - Discussion by rosborne979
Controvertial "Proof" of Multiverse! - Discussion by littlek
 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 01/24/2022 at 08:25:41