Hedonism and enslavement

Aristotle's state of eudamonia was a kinetic - you must be working on your pleasureful life. You seem to be talking about a static sort of pleasure. I say this, when you are in a neutral state - no pleasure - no pain - you feel nothing - and cannot be happy.

There is no neutral point for humans. Epicurus believed this and so do I. You are either in pain - or in pleasure. It might be tough to identify but nontheless I believe it to be binary. There is no content - not in the neutral sense. If you are content - you feel pleasure from this contentment and this pleasure is static (i.e. you are not working on it).

Also, Epicurus realized that you can want some pain in order to get to a greater pleasure - working out for instance.

You mentioned being more in touch while being slightly depressed. This is the small amount of pain - that leads you to a greater pleasure - and that is being in touch with reality.

I had trouble following your last post - but just because one persons pleasure is not reasonable does not mean that he doesn't do it for pleasure. Some people cut themselves to feel pleasure - it is still 'hedone' at it's base.

TF

0 Replies

thethinkfactory wrote:

...If you are content - you feel pleasure from this contentment and this pleasure is static (i.e. you are not working on it).

Essentially what I was trying to say.

thethinkfactory wrote:

There is no neutral point for humans. Epicurus believed this and so do I. You are either in pain - or in pleasure.

Reminds me of my thoughts on time. You either want time to slow down (i.e. because you're having a good time) or you want time to speed up (because you're having a bad time). Rarely, if ever do I find myself in between, in a state of contentment.

0 Replies

Quote:

There is no neutral point for humans. Epicurus believed this and so do I. You are either in pain - or in pleasure. It might be tough to identify but nontheless I believe it to be binary. There is no content - not in the neutral sense. If you are content - you feel pleasure from this contentment and this pleasure is static (i.e. you are not working on it).

That's one way of looking at it... but I don't agree with it. Pleasure and pain are feelings. If you evaluate the moment you feel pleasure after, say, drinking something you really like, you'd notice a difference between that feeling and the neutral state. This feeling is what I'm suggesting to not get caught up with and not to just want it for what it is because it might be associated with something wrong.

Quote:

Also, Epicurus realized that you can want some pain in order to get to a greater pleasure - working out for instance.

Yeah, but it's not the pain that one wants. It's getting through the pain, giving one a sense of achievement.

Quote:

You mentioned being more in touch while being slightly depressed. This is the small amount of pain - that leads you to a greater pleasure - and that is being in touch with reality.

I see what you mean when you use the word pleasure. It's not quite what I meant when I used the word pleasure. Pleasure is purely arbitrary. It can be associated with something unreasonable due to bad experiences. It can still be changed however. For example, I used to like a certain cartoon and hated another cartoon, but this switched over recently. Humans are rational creatures and we don't simply live for pleasure, it's something that we use, and those who are overcomed by the feeling sometimes have a harder time realizing this, but it's always probable for them to break free from it, neuroplasticity proves this.
Peace. Merry Christmas to all btw.

0 Replies

Pleasure is not something arbitrary. I cannot have bad feelings and call it pleasure. Pleasure is universal - its causes can be subjective - but not arbitrary. If it were arbitrary I could cut my head off and feel pleasure after five minutes of having no head.

There are definite attributes pleasure has and definite attributes pleasure generating things must have. There are also pleasure causing things that give more pleasure for a longer amount of time. Chocolate and beer for instance cause a slight amount of pleasure but could never be called more pleasureful in great amounts. Beer will eventually kill you and chocolate can cause all sorts of troubles (eventually vomiting and the like).

Moderation - you cannot have enough of (which seems odd - but it is true).

You states that pleasure is not all we live for - however - you have yet to tell me how you know you are happy - unless you 'feel' that you are happy - which is the very definition of pleasure.

Also, when you speak of this 'neutral' state - it is not neutral at all. After I drink a glass of water I may be satisfied - but that is pleasure generating and thus not neutral.

You still have yet to explain to me how this neutral state can be pleasure causing and yet be neutral?

However, you are not alone in thinkikng Aristotle has the right way and siding with Epictetus when saying that there is a neutral state. I, however, have yet to see good practice when it comes to these statements and reject thier theses.

TF

p.s Merry Christmas to you too - and happy new year.

0 Replies

I consider people to be more rational than just to live on what seems to give them pleasure. For example, today I could have sleep and watch TV all day and thus gain far more pleasure than cleaning my house, but I didn't since I'm having relatives over, and I certainly didn't get more pleasure in the end. I cleaned up my house because it's what I find to be the right thing to do.

Yeah, perhaps this lead to a sense of liking of doing the right thing, but I don't think I did it for the pleasure of it since I would have gain much more pleasure by just sleeping in and watching TV.

Quote:

You states that pleasure is not all we live for - however - you have yet to tell me how you know you are happy - unless you 'feel' that you are happy - which is the very definition of pleasure.

Feeling happy, is not a "feeling" of pleasure. If you think about how you feel after you drink something, and when you're just relaxing, you'd notice a difference in feeling. They don't feel the same.
Pleasure is not what we live for, because as I have noted, the feeling of pleasure could be associated with something that's not right to feel pleasure for.

Do you not agree that if we associated pleasure with the wrong things, than it is our reponsibility to change that?

0 Replies

Ray - you cleaned your house because you knew feeling embarrased in front of your relatives causes more agrogate paint than sleeping all day nets you.

I just don't know what you mean when you say that feeling happy is not pleasureful - I am not sure how you deem it as 'better' rather than different. I am not sure how the hierachy fits into your life - unless happiness nets you more pleasure than simple pleasure.

Also, you seem to be mixing in a concept of right and wrong that is undefined. How do I know what is right and what is wrong. Things like the Ten Commandments work because they are a utilitarian representation of the Hedonistic lifestyle. The most pleasure for the most amount of people is netted through non-murder, non-adultery and the like.

If I am off base with right and wrong here - define for me what is right - or are you going to say 'right is what feels right' - then we arfe back to the hedone my friend.

TF

0 Replies

Actually I don't mind being embarrased in front of my family. I just cleaned my house because I felt a duty to do so.

Perhaps I'm a bit of a Kantian, but my philosophy of right and wrong is bit different. To me what makes people feel pain and suffering is wrong, and things that destroy people's liberty unreasonably is wrong as well. What's right is respect, and enhancing people's life. You might not agree with me, but hey that's my moral reasoning.

How do I come to those conclusions? I see that pain and suffering is not there to like, because the feelings are there to be avoided. Sure, I might not be feeling the pain, but the pain exists and that's not right. I am after all, a part of this universe, and my subjectivity is not the only thing that should matter. People are people, "like" me, and as far as reason goes, "like" things must be treated alike.

People do what they think is right but right is not subjective, there is only one right answer. Yeah, this will have some metaphysical complexion, but I do believe that "right" is something that "is". Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

I do believe if there is a 'right' that there can be only one 'right'.

However, don't you think your duty is an application of the golden rule to pleasure and pain?

'Right' - in a Kantian sense has always seemed to me to be what optimises pleasure for the person or group in question.

His concepts of 'universibility' and 'reversibility' seem to be axiom generators with an underlying concept of hedonism at its base.

TF

0 Replies

TTF

Don't forget that Epicurus considered pleasure as natural or not natural.The desire for glory is not natural.
I insist, according to Epicurus, that it is impossible to reach a greater pleasure that the one given by the end of pain. In fact, as I pointed before, if you are hungry (pain, to Epicurus) and eat the exact amount of food in order to cease that pain, how can you achieve a greater pleasure?

I think Ray is talking about a sort of intellectual happiness. You are hungry but, for some reasons, you think you should not eat. In this case, Ray thinks you are in a state of happiness, but without pleasure, in fact, while the pain (hunger) remains. But I think he forgets that the intellectual reason that led him to the decision of not eating is also a form of pleasure. It is wrong to think that pleasure must always be corporal.

0 Replies

But doing what's "right" has by no means have hedonism at its base. Yes, it might lead to a sense of happiness at the thought of doing the right thing, but the reason you're doing what's right is not because it would give you some pleasure. Thoughts -> action -> pleasure. pleasure shouldn't be the starting point of the whole event.

Quote:

However, don't you think your duty is an application of the golden rule to pleasure and pain?

In a way. The duty is a duty to not harm anyone. If a person finds pleasure in hurting himself, then I wouldn't find that "right" since all he is doing is hurting someone whilst not "feeling" it.

Please correct my definition of hedonism but when I hear people talking about hedonism, I find that they are talking about finding things that will give them more and more feeling of "pleasure" like this is all they live for, and they go on talking about wanting more and more of the pleasure of sex, of wine, of whatever, and I don't find this to be right. I find a difference in the feeling of moderation and of these "pleasures" they're talking about, and I find that these "pleasures" are only temporary reactions in your brain that induces dopamine to make you feel as if you want it and to make the action associated to it greater than it seems. This is my conclusions that these "pleasure" feelings are just motivators and if not guided properly, it can lead to the wrong association of things. I find that moderation is the singlemost virtuous and non-affected mode which enables you to think properly whilst not feeling pain and not being enslaved by the feelings.

I really don't think that pleasures is what we live for. If the only true pleasure is to not have pain, hey that's pretty reasonable except that sometimes you need to feel pain to see how things really are and to be able to be motivated to not like that thing.

0 Replies

Ray wrote:

Please correct my definition of hedonism but when I hear people talking about hedonism, I find that they are talking about finding things that will give them more and more feeling of "pleasure" like this is all they live for, and they go on talking about wanting more and more of the pleasure of sex, of wine, of whatever, and I don't find this to be right. I find a difference in the feeling of moderation and of these "pleasures" they're talking about, and I find that these "pleasures" are only temporary reactions in your brain that induces dopamine to make you feel as if you want it and to make the action associated to it greater than it seems. This is my conclusions that these "pleasure" feelings are just motivators and if not guided properly, it can lead to the wrong association of things.

Your definition of hedonism is misguided. You have stated a hedonism that is in line with the Cyreanics - not the Epicureans. The Cyreanics thought pleasure was the end of life - and more is better. They were known for thier gluttonous orgies of food, wine, and sex.

The Epicureans, however, thought that pleasure was end of life and thought that the only way to maximize this pleasure was through the proper definition of pleasure. Pleasure - to the Epicureans (as Val stated and I stated earlier) by definition is merely the 'cessation of pain'. I think that if you think about this definition this pleasure is the happiness you have been talking about.

TF

0 Replies

Hedonism and enslavement

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know