The sliding scale of pain and pleasure

[toa$t]

I hope you now see the inescapability of hierarchies of desire. How are you going to escape them without creating a new one?

I think you need to explain what you mean by a hierarchy. do you mean that the pleasure you get from sex is a better kind of pleasure than the pleasure you get from masturbation, or say from reading a good book? If this is what you believe the onus is on you to explain why you believe that they are different kinds of pleasure. In doing so, you can't refer to the fact that 'everyone considers them to be different' (naturalistic fallacy) or 'obviously they aren't the same.' it's not obvious to me. maybe I'm too stupid to understand how they aren't the same, but if that's the case, please indulge me.

Pleasures, they are all similar, but you have named different types. All of the specific instances have differences to them. There is an underlying thread to them sure, but I don't see the value in collapsing them to "being all the same." Feeling good can come in many forms, just because we conceive of them all as "pleasure," doesn't make them indistinguishable. What is the value in not honoring their uniqueness?

this is a different argument. we aren't talking about the best way to conceive of harm/pleasure so for the moment, set aside the practical issue of how we ought to conceive of pain/harm for the best overall good and address what type(s) of thing(s) it(they) actually is(are).

edit: please try to address my points individually. show me exactly where you think I am going wrong, and then tell me why.

 

[Shakti]

The type of hierarchy I'm talking about is a conceptual map of the different types of pleasure pain experiences arranged by their value to the experiencer. For example, though the specifics are certainly open to debate, the ones that are life affirming and spiritually enlightening are at the top and the ones that are soul crushing are at the bottom. Most mundane ones are somewhere in the middle.

My point isn't that some pleasures are better than others, though that is true. My point is that pleasures and pains ought to be conceived of hierarchically for two main reasons. One, because the effect of experiencing them upon our lives is much greater than ooh, or ouch. Some have the power to shape us and direct our lives. Others we forget about very quickly and are relatively inconsequential. Two, we had ought to conceive of them this way because people shape their hopes and aspirations, fears and aversions around achieving higher manifestations of pleasure in their own internal pleasure/pain conceptual hierarchy. You already said people do this. This isn't a naturalistic fallacy because I'm not arguing a moral point about it, I'm arguing about concepts. We ought to conceive of it this way because it sure does seem to be the case and it could help us understand people’s motivations and actions. If we find a better way of looking at it, well we can go with that, but until then, I'll go with this. Not, is-ought.

Anyway, they are not all the same. When we are children, we derive great pleasure from playing in a sandbox for example. When we are teenagers the pleasure derived from it is not relevant to our needs. If pleasure was simply all just pleasure then why would one ever stop playing in the sand box? Or sucking on their mother's tit? Can you argue that suckling does not produce a large amount of pleasure? Babies seem to think it's the tits, pun intended. Yet, at some point it's no longer enough. We have desires to achieve higher pleasures, which coincide with avoiding higher pains. Crawling, then walking seems to be the focus of pleasure. This is followed by a series of pleasure foci that allow for a human to become a relatively independent adult. I’m not a developmental psychologist, please don’t expect me to list them all. Growing beyond the pleasure of sex, the pleasures become less corporeal and more ethereal. The pleasure of being a competent loving parent, or of being successful and satisfied by your mode of work, for example. These pleasures are experienced vastly different than suckling.

We grow through a hierarchy of pleasures and pains. Each one, as it develops, transcends and includes its predecessor. Crawling doesn’t make us stop desiring food, but food is no longer the most important thing. What I’m describing is a hierarchy of needs. Pleasure and pain are just experiences of fulfilling or failing to fulfill those needs. When we are hungry an apple is a high pleasure. When we are fed but not safe, an apple is a small pleasure, but obtaining a gun would be quite pleasurable. The apple isn’t any different, doesn’t feel or taste any different, but the pleasure is different. Etc, etc…

this is a different argument. we aren't talking about the best way to conceive of harm/pleasure so for the moment, set aside the practical issue of how we ought to conceive of pain/harm for the best overall good and address what type(s) of thing(s) it(they) actually is(are).

This is what we've been doing this entire time. I'm confused why I should drop it, anyway...

So you’re asking me to define pleasure and pain? As simply as I can, a pleasure is a stimulus perceived by an individual to be a positive unto their person. A pain is a stimulus perceived by an individual to be a negative unto their person.

I suspect this is a trap, for how could you not know what pleasure and pain are. Anyway, fair warning, if you try and argue that this is somehow evidence of it being a ‘sliding scale’. You’d be mistaken, that is merely one conceptual map that can be derived from that definition and a crude one at that.

I hope I’ve cleared some stuff up. I could go on, but it’s not that pleasurable to me.

 

[toa$t]

This is what we've been doing this entire time. I'm confused why I should drop it, anyway...

you should drop it because this thread is about what pain/pleasure are, not how we ought most effectively to conceive of them. these are two completely different subjects. for example: it is often easier to conceive of mass and energy as two different things, even though they are actually the same. if I started a thread asking if people think that mass and energy are actually the same thing, telling me that it is easier to conceive of them as two different things is beside the point. i didn't ask what was easier, I asked for what was true.

Anyway, they are not all the same. When we are children, we derive great pleasure from playing in a sandbox for example. When we are teenagers the pleasure derived from it is not relevant to our needs. If pleasure was simply all just pleasure then why would one ever stop playing in the sand box? Or sucking on their mother's tit? Can you argue that suckling does not produce a large amount of pleasure? Babies seem to think it's the tits, pun intended. Yet, at some point it's no longer enough. We have desires to achieve higher pleasures, which coincide with avoiding higher pains. Crawling, then walking seems to be the focus of pleasure. This is followed by a series of pleasure foci that allow for a human to become a relatively independent adult. I’m not a developmental psychologist, please don’t expect me to list them all. Growing beyond the pleasure of sex, the pleasures become less corporeal and more ethereal. The pleasure of being a competent loving parent, or of being successful and satisfied by your mode of work, for example. These pleasures are experienced vastly different than suckling.

We grow through a hierarchy of pleasures and pains. Each one, as it develops, transcends and includes its predecessor. Crawling doesn’t make us stop desiring food, but food is no longer the most important thing. What I’m describing is a hierarchy of needs. Pleasure and pain are just experiences of fulfilling or failing to fulfill those needs. When we are hungry an apple is a high pleasure. When we are fed but not safe, an apple is a small pleasure, but obtaining a gun would be quite pleasurable. The apple isn’t any different, doesn’t feel or taste any different, but the pleasure is different. Etc, etc…

I don't really disagree with any of this. 'higher' pleasures are pleasures that seem to generate more pleasure. 'lower' pleasures are pleasures that seem to generate less pleasure. as children, we get more pleasure from playing in a sandbox. as adults, we get more pleasure from reading a novel. that in no way means that those two things bring about a different type of pleasure. there is only one kind.

So I guess I'd better get around to giving a positive account already. there is a very simple reason why i think there can only be one type of pleasure. because to suggest that there are more than one type is to suggest that there is some sort of outside objective standard by which we can compare them. there is simply no such standard. how do we determine which pleasures are higher and which pleasures are lower? well, the higher ones are more pleasurable than the lower ones. if you can think of some outside standard by which we can evaluate different types of pleasure that doesn't involve an appeal to pleasure itself, I'm all ears.

 

[Shakti]

you should drop it because this thread is about what pain/pleasure are, not how we ought most effectively to conceive of them. these are two completely different subjects. for example: it is often easier to conceive of mass and energy as two different things, even though they are actually the same. if I started a thread asking if people think that mass and energy are actually the same thing, telling me that it is easier to conceive of them as two different things is beside the point. i didn't ask what was easier, I asked for what was true.

Well in discussing what they are, we are merely discussing our conceptions of them. What else could we be discussing but our conceptions? Map is not territory, but you’re trying to make one it. The highest truth cannot be spoken.

I don't really disagree with any of this. 'higher' pleasures are pleasures that seem to generate more pleasure. 'lower' pleasures are pleasures that seem to generate less pleasure. as children, we get more pleasure from playing in a sandbox. as adults, we get more pleasure from reading a novel. that in no way means that those two things bring about a different type of pleasure. there is only one kind.

Sorry, but this shit is just ironic. You don’t disagree with it you say. Yet, you then go and disagree with it by simply restating your position. How could you agree with it and hold the position you do? Please, you have to engage and criticize the substance of another person’s argument to have yours prevail.

So I guess I'd better get around to giving a positive account already. there is a very simple reason why i think there can only be one type of pleasure. because to suggest that there are more than one type is to suggest that there is some sort of outside objective standard by which we can compare them. there is simply no such standard. how do we determine which pleasures are higher and which pleasures are lower? well, the higher ones are more pleasurable than the lower ones. if you can think of some outside standard by which we can evaluate different types of pleasure that doesn't involve an appeal to pleasure itself, I'm all ears.

I could just as easily say there is no objective measure to say all pleasures are the same or that there is even a difference in magnitude to pleasure. But the truth is, there is an objective view point to pleasure. We can observe others engaged in something pleasurable and make note of their responses both short and long term. People react differently to different pleasure and pain stimuli. You stub your toe, you say shit. The people in your life are rude to you and disrespect you, you may sulk and develop neuroses and have a low sense of self worth. Would our responses be so different if the stimuli were the same?

We can empirically observe what pleasures people seek and pains they avoid. We can empirically observe what one’s they seek and avoid given their level of personal development. We can empirically observe that once the acquisition of certain pleasures is adequately met, people move on to acquire different ones. We can empirically observe that there is a general successive trend to which ones people seek, ie hierarchy of needs. All of my claims are empirically verifiable/falsifiable.

Besides all that, do you really want to say that the pleasure you receive from reading a beautiful thoughtful poem is experienced in the same way as getting your dick sucked? Sure, they are both pleasurable, but they are also very different. If you can’t tell the difference between the two, well you need to read less poetry. hehe

Also, I think this is very important for you to understand, there is a such thing as consensual reality. We can't empirically prove a lot of shit that we accept to be real. The simple fact that you are conscious, that there is a you in there experiencing this, cannot be empirically proven. Yet isn't civilized society based on the fact that we recognize other people as awake individuals? Materialism is not the end all be all of knowledge. In fact it is a very lowly method IMO. Sure it's useful and has provided us with many material things, but please don't collapse all of human knowledge to empiricism. You can't empirically know what a dog will do next. You can't empirically test what you are experiencing. Does that make it any less real? Empirically prove that you exist.

 

[toa$t]

Sorry, but this shit is just ironic. You don’t disagree with it you say. Yet, you then go and disagree with it by simply restating your position. How could you agree with it and hold the position you do? Please, you have to engage and criticize the substance of another person’s argument to have yours prevail.

dude, read my post and yours again. they are not incompatible. I agree that higher and lower pleasures exist, but disagree on the conditions that produce so called higher and lower pleasures.

anyway, you're obviously not reading/understanding my posts, so i'm not going to bother anymore.

 

[Shakti]

retreat retreat retreat...

Come on dude. You can do better.

 

[toa$t]

obviously not. i've made all my points. they haven't been understood. i'm done.

 

[Shakti]

No, I've understood your points. I just don't agree with them in many respects.

Its funny. You ask me again and again, tell me this, tell me that. I oblige and you say that you haven't been understood.

 

[toa$t]

oh I see. you seem to think that I have reformulated my position. i agree that 'higher' and 'lower' pleasures exist insofar as some things produce more pleasure than others (e.g.playing in a sandbox as a child produces more pleasure than reading a novel as an child), but the thing that they produce (i.e. pleasure) is the same. same point I have been making this entire thread. but you seem to think that they produce different things, say pleasure1 and pleasure2. that's what I don't get.

edit: aimed at your above post.

 

[toa$t]

so is that really your position though? that books produce pleasure1 and sandboxes produce pleasure2?

 

[Shakti]

No, your position has been consistent. I recognize that. You have been very consistent in your position, repetitive even.

I'm not sure how to explain how pleasures can be different other than how I already have.
1. Different pleasures lead to different responses.
2. We experience pleasures differently. ie pleasure1 feels different from pleasure2
3. People seek different pleasures to satisfy different needs.

So, we experience them differently. Other people can see we experience them different. We seek different ones for different reasons.

 

[toa$t]

Its funny. You ask me again and again, tell me this, tell me that. I oblige and you say that you haven't been understood.

fair enough. here:

I could just as easily say there is no objective measure to say all pleasures are the same or that there is even a difference in magnitude to pleasure. But the truth is, there is an objective view point to pleasure. We can observe others engaged in something pleasurable and make note of their responses both short and long term. People react differently to different pleasure and pain stimuli. You stub your toe, you say shit. The people in your life are rude to you and disrespect you, you may sulk and develop neuroses and have a low sense of self worth. Would our responses be so different if the stimuli were the same?

the way people react to things is once again not an objective measure that is useful for determining what something ACTUALLY is. it is useful for objectively evaluating what someone's OPINION of something is.

We can empirically observe what pleasures people seek and pains they avoid. We can empirically observe what one’s they seek and avoid given their level of personal development. We can empirically observe that once the acquisition of certain pleasures is adequately met, people move on to acquire different ones. We can empirically observe that there is a general successive trend to which ones people seek, ie hierarchy of needs. All of my claims are empirically verifiable/falsifiable.

this is completely irrelevant to the issue at hand.

Besides all that, do you really want to say that the pleasure you receive from reading a beautiful thoughtful poem is experienced in the same way as getting your dick sucked? Sure, they are both pleasurable, but they are also very different. If you can’t tell the difference between the two, well you need to read less poetry. hehe

yes, I absolutely want to say that. pleasure is pleasure. answer this question: by what standard other than "one is more pleasurable than the other" can you compare the two? to say that "people react differently to them" tells you nothing more than the fact that people react differently to them. people's reaction do not get to the absolute source of what is causing their reactions.

secondly, you have a different reaction to reading sad poetry to reading happy poetry. would you say that those are different in kind? how about different pleasurable reactions to two different happy poems? entirely possible. would you say that those pleasures are different in kind? pushing hard in this direction leads me to believe that your position entails that nearly every different pleasurable experience is going to be different in some way from every other-- happiness with a tinge of sadness or longing or nostalgia or euphoria or whatever. if each and every pleasurable experience varies in terms of its composition, aren't we all of a sudden back where we started? pleasure = things that make us happy. there might be minor (or even major) differences in what brings the pleasure about, but it is overall the same thing.

Also, I think this is very important for you to understand, there is a such thing as consensual reality. We can't empirically prove a lot of shit that we accept to be real. The simple fact that you are conscious, that there is a you in there experiencing this, cannot be empirically proven. Yet isn't civilized society based on the fact that we recognize other people as awake individuals? Materialism is not the end all be all of knowledge. In fact it is a very lowly method IMO. Sure it's useful and has provided us with many material things, but please don't collapse all of human knowledge to empiricism. You can't empirically know what a dog will do next. You can't empirically test what you are experiencing. Does that make it any less real? Empirically prove that you exist.

who said anything about empirical proof?! that's exactly what I am trying to avoid! i've based all of my arguments on principles! 8)

 

[Shakti]

the way people react to things is once again not an objective measure that is useful for determining what something ACTUALLY is. it is useful for objectively evaluating what someone's OPINION of something is.

1st off. I'm not talking about asking people what they think about different pleasures, I'm talking about observing their reactions to them. Entirely different method.

2nd, you can't tell me what anything ACTUALLY is. You can tell me what you think about it, you can tell me a litany of conceptions and impressions of it, but MAP IS NOT TERRITORY.

this is completely irrelevant to the issue at hand.

who said anything about empirical proof?! that's exactly what I am trying to avoid! i've based all of my arguments on principles!

You asked me for objective evidence, now you don't want it?

if you can think of some outside standard by which we can evaluate different types of pleasure that doesn't involve an appeal to pleasure itself, I'm all ears.

secondly, you have a different reaction to reading sad poetry to reading happy poetry. would you say that those are different in kind? how about different pleasurable reactions to two different happy poems? entirely possible. would you say that those pleasures are different in kind?

Well, the two happy poems are the same because we haven’t differentiated them. But of course they are different. Different enough to be different kinds or types? Perhaps, it all depends on how deep you want to map things.
The happy and sad song are different in kind because you have declared it so. You’ve created the difference.

pushing hard in this direction leads me to believe that your position entails that nearly every different pleasurable experience is going to be different in some way from every other-- happiness with a tinge of sadness or longing or nostalgia or euphoria or whatever.

Yes, everything is unique. The very definition of “a thing” is to be an individuated, unique manifestation of reality. Why would you choose to be blind to that?
if each and every pleasurable experience varies in terms of its composition, aren't we all of a sudden back where we started? pleasure = things that make us happy.

We are not back were we started. If we follow that path and expound upon all the differences of pleasures, of which there are a great many, our definition of pleasure might not change but our understanding of it sure would.

there might be minor (or even major) differences in what brings the pleasure about, but it is overall the same thing

That’s true only if we choose to define it as such and negate all difference in pleasures. Map is not territory.
Your argument is collapsing to all pleasures are pleasures so they are the same.

edit: I'm going to bed. That's it for me tonight.

 

[Papa1]

say pleasure1 and pleasure2.

Just to jump in... What if there were different kinds of pleasure? What would be the basis for separating them? Just how they *feel*?

To me, there are a number of desirable things that are pleasurable in a number of ways. Masturbation might feel less physically pleasurable than sex, but it can also be less socially taxing. I can be enjoying sex physically while feeling embarrassed emotionally (maybe I'm awkward and think my armpits smell), and vice versa with masturbation. Physical and social pleasures seem distinct. I'd go further to say that there are a lot of these distinct 'pleasures'.

Another example: I can be freezing my ass off (not pleasurable) while climbing a mountain (pleasurable). Most situations seem to be a mix and a trade-off in desirable and non-desirable states.

 

[Shakti]

I'd go further to say that there are a lot of these distinct 'pleasures'.

I agree as you can probably tell from my prior posts.

 

[Jamshyd]

Bumping to avoid prune.