Hedonism

[Cosmic Trigger]

Don't take too long DM, time and our universe is winding down.

 

[Nixiam]

Haha WTF.

I have read the entire thread and for some reason DM always sounds like some god with a golden voice speaking inside my mind.

Do you guys ever get those voices? Like a faint call? Power of thought.

Anyways, hedonism.

I'm kind of like a hedonist, except the pleasure I seek is at best removing obstacles from my life. And opiate induced euphoria.

Enlightened Hedonsim kind of sounds like a false altruism. Almost like an innate human principle. I mean, are there people trying to suffer? Or is there a neutrality between pleasure and displeasure, or is the neutrality for one person pleasureable to another, as if enjoyment is relative?

I define hedonism as a person seeking pleasure.

Oh! False altruism isn't bad imo! If someone can please themselves and others (even just as collaterl), do it!

I personally find happiness in seeing others smile because of something I said or did. I don't do it to please them, but I do it because it pleases me to have them pleased with me.

 

[drug_mentor]

Yes I think it's like your No. 1.

I am not certain whether you are actually a consequentialist (although what I outlined after (i) was an indirect consequentialist theory) because at times your focus seems to be on overall benefit and at others it seems more exclusively focused on benefits to the agent. I am a little short on time so for now I am just going to elaborate on the main problem with indirect consequentialist theories that I alluded to earlier.

Indirect consequentialism says that you should act according to certain rules or principles because doing so will generally promote better consequences than engaging in calculative deliberation before the performance of actions. The problem is that for just about any principle(s) you select there are conceivable circumstances in which it will be quite obvious that not following the principle(s) will promote better consequences than following it, in such a situation the indirect consequentialist is forced to say one of two things: a) it is better to follow the rule or principle even though it won't promote the best consequences in this case, or b) in such cases it is okay to abandon the principle(s).

The problem with a) is that the consequentialist winds up advocating a course of action which doesn't promote the best consequences, this is contrary to the whole point of consequentialism. The problem with b) is that if the so-called indirect consequentialist advocates abandoning the indirect approach to decision making then the theory seems to collapse into direct consequentialism.

If we consider your principle of the agent pursuing their own pleasure in order to promote the best consequences I think you will run into problems of this nature rather quickly. I am probably going to be too busy to provide any serious reply in the next couple of weeks so I am not going to formulate any examples because you might take issue with them. However, I don't think it takes much creativity to conceive of circumstances in which a person could promote more overall happiness by refraining from pursuing their own pleasure than by pursuing said pleasure.

I define hedonism as a person seeking pleasure.

I think this definition is problematic for a number of reasons. For starters, I think it is too broad to even function as an adequate definition for every day, non-philosophical hedonism. It seems to me that on this definition minor indulgences like having a moderate sized glass of coca cola even though you aren't really thirsty (but happen to enjoy the taste of coke) would be hedonistic behaviour. I don't find this very plausible. A more relevant issue with your definition is that it doesn't advance any kind of claim, so it can't really be interpreted philosophically.

 

[Nixiam]

I'll post a more indepth reply later going over hedonism and what I think most hedonists would qualify another person as (a hedonist).

I will say that I think the hedonistic lifestyle is far more intricate than my previous definition.

I will certainly expand upon it.

 

[Cosmic Trigger]

I'm not saying we pursue our own hightest pleasure to achieve a benefit for all. I'm saying that when we find what is in our own best interest/pleasure to the highest degree it often benefits others.

 

[Foreigner]

It wasnt aimed at anyone really. I think we are somewhat in agreement that hedonism need not benefit the masses at all. Unlike the debate that went on about altruism, hedonistic acts can be selfish.

I do agree total hedonism with complete disregard of anything or anyone else as long as pleasure is achieved is not a sustainable philosophy or way to live. I would have to think a bit more if one of your, my or no clause is best as I lack the education and/or experience of you all on these matters. But thats good to me. Must consider different views to really know which is best.

If hedonism is who you really are, down to your core of cores, your truest inner virtue, and that's what you're here to do, then being that way is being true to yourself. It can only do you good -- selfishness to the nth degree and total concern and investment with one's own pleasure. But I don't fully buy that most people can be that way without accumulating an inner seed of guilt or remorse, no matter how subconscious. In other words, how does one differentiate an inner virtue of hedonism, from a mere ego of hedonism? If you're just chasing ego, then you're not really dealing with anything.

I've met hedonists who are extremely self-avoidant. Pleasure leads to complacency, unless you're applying some kind of structured discipline to your practice. But if you're all about pleasure, then why would you put in any work beyond instant gratification? Hello, look at drug addiction? Yeah there's a physiological component, but not all drugs are physically addictive, many are psychologically habit forming. If anything, the drug world should indicate that chasing what feels good with wreckless abandon leads to the destruction of the person and all their personal ties.

Also, there is the issue of overlap between hedonism and narcissism. The two can be inter-related. Likewise, pure hedonism could be psychopathic. If your concern is only about you and no one else, then how can you develop compassion? The outer and inner meet. How you treat others is reflected upon how you treat yourself. (That's the connection you're asking about.)

The other thing is... avoidance of suffering and pure concern with pleasure is attachment. And attachment in of itself leads to suffering. Talk to most sex addicts (truly diagnosed ones), and they'll tell you what kind of hell it creates.

I'd love to hear from an actual hedonist though. I'm not one so I may be misattributing some things.

 

[Karen J]

I don't fully buy that most people can be that way without accumulating an inner seed of guilt or remorse, no matter how subconscious.

Pure hedonism is like pure anything else; it exists only in theory.

On the other hand, I think a lot of people who try to do good things for others do them mainly to feel better about themselves, so their philosophy isn't pure either.

I find it hard to do things that are truly helpful to others. What seems to help them in the short run often ultimately hurts them, and their truest needs often tend to be things that they can't be given by any one ordinary person. So I usually end up saying "fuck it" and being a hedonist.

For example, the homeless guy on the street corner doesn't get much benefit out of a handout. He needs a better brain, and a full time job. I can't give him either, so I keep my money for myself.

 

[Kittycat5]

Good post, Foreigner. Thanks.

 

[Cosmic Trigger]

Pure hedonism is like pure anything else; it exists only in theory.

On the other hand, I think a lot of people who try to do good things for others do them mainly to feel better about themselves, so their philosophy isn't pure either.

I find it hard to do things that are truly helpful to others. What seems to help them in the short run often ultimately hurts them, and their truest needs often tend to be things that they can't be given by any one ordinary person. So I usually end up saying "fuck it" and being a hedonist.

For example, the homeless guy on the street corner doesn't get much benefit out of a handout. He needs a better brain, and a full time job. I can't give him either, so I keep my money for myself.

Since he/she doesn't have a better brain and a job a little money can be a emotional life saver. I prefer to give selectively.

 

[polymath]

There's also the concept of "eudaimonia"...

https://psywb.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/2211-1522-1-3

How is happiness generated via brain function in lucky individuals who have the good fortune to be happy? Conceptually, well-being or happiness has long been viewed as requiring at least two crucial ingredients: positive affect or pleasure (hedonia) and a sense of meaningfulness or engagement in life (eudaimonia). Science has recently made progress in relating hedonic pleasure to brain function, and so here we survey new insights into how brains generate the hedonic ingredient of sustained or frequent pleasure. We also briefly discuss how brains might connect hedonia states of pleasure to eudaimonia assessments of meaningfulness, and so create balanced states of positive well-being.

 

[Ziiirp]

Hedonism in my experience only works as other side of the coin of workaholism/ascetism in order to achieve the middle path. A hedonist, who has everything handed to them automatically feels the urge to work towards a greater altruistic goal, in order to not be eaten alive by a omnipresent emptiness.

Hedonism is always accompanied by tedium sooner or later, leading the paradigm ad absurdum, if applied independently of a antidote.

 

[Foreigner]

^ That's a good point.

 

[Nixiam]

Hedonism in my experience only works as other side of the coin of workaholism/ascetism in order to achieve the middle path. A hedonist, who has everything handed to them automatically feels the urge to work towards a greater altruistic goal, in order to not be eaten alive by a omnipresent emptiness.

Hedonism is always accompanied by tedium sooner or later, leading the paradigm ad absurdum, if applied independently of a antidote.

I'm very much with you on this, but can you describe to me the part about atruism? This isn't really the thread for that kind if thing, but altruism actually seems like an important bit in the whole balanced hedonsim thing you mention.

So a hedonist in the fashion you speak of will feel a great emptiness if given handouts and will work towards something that benefits all?

Really kind of sounds defeating of altruism. Working to regain that pleasure or that sense you don't owe anything/you've done your part is just pursuit if happiness, which seems perfectly hedonistic to me, but is it altruistic if you did it for the pleasure?

By a skimpy definition, an altruistic hedonist sounds a bit like an oxymoron.

That's all I'm confused on, other than that your post was well said.

 

[Karen J]

Hedonism is always accompanied by tedium sooner or later, leading the paradigm ad absurdum, if applied independently of a antidote.

Always? How would you know that?

You're implying that all its long-term practitioners know it to be inferior.

 

[Ziiirp]

Every elitist/privileged person will agree. You cannot persevere pure hedonism. Hedonism is just a loose term for polyaddiction (not only to drugs, but to activities/objects/beings). Siddharta used to be a hedonist before he got fed up and became an ascetic, which also did not work.