The problem of hedonism

[mymamamary]

Hedonism is of course, the Philosophy that Pleasure is the only intrinsic good.

I find a big error in that line of thinking:

If pleasure is the only intrinsic good, then why are Drug addicts among the least happiest of people?

If pleasure is the only intrinsic good, then why do Hollywood movie stars and directors jump off of bridges, when all pleasure is gauranteed to them at a mere whim?

If pleasure is the only intrinisic good, then why do young folks always end up in heartbreak over their BF/GF, even when they share each others body in fornication?

It seems to me that an intrinsic good would be a joyful and fulfilling one, yet all I see is a severe dissatisfaction.

Im challenging the Status Quo, as the Status Quo indeed seems fixiated on the idea of Pleasure as the ultimate and supreme good.

Anyone else want to as well?

 

[GEddie]

Hedonism is of course, the Philosophy that Pleasure is the only intrinsic good.

I find a big error in that line of thinking:

If pleasure is the only intrinsic good, then why are Drug addicts among the least happiest of people?

If pleasure is the only intrinsic good, then why do Hollywood movie stars and directors jump off of bridges, when all pleasure is gauranteed to them at a mere whim?

If pleasure is the only intrinisic good, then why do young folks always end up in heartbreak over their BF/GF, even when they share each others body in fornication?

It seems to me that an intrinsic good would be a joyful and fulfilling one, yet all I see is a severe dissatisfaction.

Im challenging the Status Quo, as the Status Quo indeed seems fixiated on the idea of Pleasure as the ultimate and supreme good.

Anyone else want to as well?

Because all pleasures are finite, but our need in infinite. Only the life everlasting in our LORD’s embrace can meet that need.

No matter how pleasure filled a sinful relationship becomes, it leaves only pain when it comes to an end, as it must do.

Drugs wreck one’s human body and interpersonal life, leaving the user worse off than before.

And no matter what expensive pleasures we can gain, the adventure of human life can only end with our eyes rolled back in our heads.

There is no winning in this game.

Shalom, ICXC NIKA

 

[mymamamary]

Because all pleasures are finite, but our need in infinite. Only the life everlasting in our LORD’s embrace can meet that need.

No matter how pleasure filled a sinful relationship becomes, it leaves only pain when it comes to an end, as it must do.

Drugs wreck one’s human body and interpersonal life, leaving the user worse off than before.

And no matter what expensive pleasures we can gain, the adventure of human life can only end with our eyes rolled back in our heads.

There is no winning in this game.

Shalom, ICXC NIKA

My point exactly!!

 

[InJesusItrust]

The sad thing is that many people are hedonists without knowing it. How often have you discovered that someone does not want to “waste” his time to seek out God so that he can use the time to enjoy his life? This foolish hedonism motivates one to throw away an infinite, eternal good for transitory pleasure!

 

[ThinkingSapien]

The sad thing is that many people are hedonists without knowing it. How often have you discovered that someone does not want to “waste” his time to seek out God so that he can use the time to enjoy his life? This foolish hedonism motivates one to throw away an infinite, eternal good for transitory pleasure!

I think that speaks more on ones anticipation. If you convince some one that he or she will fail at accomplishing the goal of some activity then you will be able to destroy extrinsic motivtions that the person has for that activity. If a person already anticipates failure in the “seeking” activity then it may be evaluated as consuming time with the end result being not finding what is being saught. Convince the person that success is possible and you have removed a demotivating factor. Because there may be other factors at play removing this single demotivator may not immediately result in the person being motivated to seek. What is needed in addition to that would need to be evaluated on a person by person basis.

Pardon my mistakes. Sent from my mobile device.

 

[Portofino]

Hedonism is of course, the Philosophy that Pleasure is the only intrinsic good.

I find a big error in that line of thinking:

If pleasure is the only intrinsic good, then why are Drug addicts among the least happiest of people?

If pleasure is the only intrinsic good, then why do Hollywood movie stars and directors jump off of bridges, when all pleasure is gauranteed to them at a mere whim?

If pleasure is the only intrinisic good, then why do young folks always end up in heartbreak over their BF/GF, even when they share each others body in fornication?

It seems to me that an intrinsic good would be a joyful and fulfilling one, yet all I see is a severe dissatisfaction.

Im challenging the Status Quo, as the Status Quo indeed seems fixiated on the idea of Pleasure as the ultimate and supreme good.

Anyone else want to as well?

Most philosophers would agree with you, including the philosopher of hedonism, par excellence – Epicurus.

The Greek philosophers, in general, understood that physical pleasure alone is not sufficient to happiness – and, in fact, can be injurious to happiness.

This was a big component of what they called wisdom; wisdom was understanding and discerning that which will make you happy, and that which will not (even if it may appear to promise happiness).

Their basic insight is that happiness is a state of mind, and that physical pleasure and material possessions – which gratify the body – are not sufficient to secure the mind a lasting happiness.

Wisdom discerns that it is virtue that secures a lasting happiness – for example, the virtue of moderation. Gratitude is another virtue, as when Epicurus says, “do not focus continually on what you don’t have, but rather realize that what you have now is what you once wanted.” Friendliness is a virtue because, by far, the single greatest source of mental suffering – and the one that is the least guarded against – is loneliness (unremitting loneliness can lead to thoughts of suicide). Epicurus personally believed that the best defense against loneliness was not romantic passion – as it was too unstable – but rather friendship, which can be lifelong (marriage based on the spouses also being “best friends,” could also fit this description). Xenophon’s Socrates found it telling that most of his interlocuters could tell him precisely how much land and wealth they had, but couldn’t tell him how many friends they had (which he considered the greater wealth, in terms of securing happiness).

That being said, these Greek philosophers also counted some measure of self-sufficiency as a virtue. To have as few needs as possible – not having expensive tastes, nor being incapable of spending time alone, not being incapable of missing a meal – was a great virtue, insofar as it was a means to happiness, or a defense against unhappiness. As Epicurus put it, “nothing is enough to the man for whom enough is too little.” And Socrates, walking through the marketplace, is said to have proclaimed, “how many things there are here, that I do not want!”

 

[mymamamary]

QUOTE=Portofino;9976527]Most philosophers would agree with you, including the philosopher of hedonism, par excellence – Epicurus.

The Greek philosophers, in general, understood that physical pleasure alone is not sufficient to happiness – and, in fact, can be injurious to happiness.

This was a big component of what they called wisdom; wisdom was understanding and discerning that which will make you happy, and that which will not (even if it may appear to promise happiness).

Their basic insight is that happiness is a state of mind, and that physical pleasure and material possessions – which gratify the body – are not sufficient to secure the mind a lasting happiness.

Wisdom discerns that it is virtue that secures a lasting happiness – for example, the virtue of moderation. Gratitude is another virtue, as when Epicurus says, “do not focus continually on what you don’t have, but rather realize that what you have now is what you once wanted.” Friendliness is a virtue because, by far, the single greatest source of mental suffering – and the one that is the least guarded against – is loneliness (unremitting loneliness can lead to thoughts of suicide). Epicurus personally believed that the best defense against loneliness was not romantic passion – as it was too unstable – but rather friendship, which can be lifelong (marriage based on the spouses also being “best friends,” could also fit this description). Xenophon’s Socrates found it telling that most of his interlocuters could tell him precisely how much land and wealth they had, but couldn’t tell him how many friends they had (which he considered the greater wealth, in terms of securing happiness).

That being said, these Greek philosophers also counted some measure of self-sufficiency as a virtue. To have as few needs as possible – not having expensive tastes, nor being incapable of spending time alone, not being incapable of missing a meal – was a great virtue, insofar as it was a means to happiness, or a defense against unhappiness. As Epicurus put it, “nothing is enough to the man for whom enough is too little.” And Socrates, walking through the marketplace, is said to have proclaimed, “how many things there are here, that I do not want!”

True, but society doesnt give two cents for Wisdom, Dialogue, Moderation etc. These are all virtues to an extent, but modern society doesn’t care for it. They just want their sex, drugs and rock and roll at their fingertips. In fact, my first assgiment in Philosophy was talking about Dialogue in Philosophy, and one of the questions assigned was :" Do you think people can dialogue today" or at least it sounded close to that. I answered a big NO. Reason is, people are too mediocre and apathetic to care for things like wisdom and the big fundamental questions, so they wouldn’t know enough to carry a dialogue and they wouldn’t care. The mediocritiy, especially at school, just makes me want to smash my head off a brick wall sometimes…

:banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead:

 

[atheistgirl]

And Socrates, walking through the marketplace, is said to have proclaimed, “how many things there are here, that I do not want!”

I’ve instilled in my kids the same outlook

It saves a small fortune and the house is always clean and tidy

Edited to say - there is currently a vote going on in our house - to keep the TV or get rid of it. Exit polls indicate we won’t have a TV on Wednesday

This is because I got the kids to add up the total amount of hours over a 10 week period they actually watched TV … it didn’t hit double digits We’re just not a sit down in front of the tv kinda family … always got things going on and family time every day is around food and family activities. So, we’re going to donate it if the vote comes out as I suspect it will

Sarah x

 

[atheistgirl]

True, but society doesnt give two cents for Wisdom, Dialogue, Moderation etc.

We live in different societies then.

There has always been excess with us, and there always will be.

But I see no evidence that society at large is becoming less wise, less tolerant, less moderate, or unable to dialog and reflect on the bigger picture.

Sarah x

 

[mymamamary]

We live in different societies then.

There has always been excess with us, and there always will be.

But I see no evidence that society at large is becoming less wise, less tolerant, less moderate, or unable to dialog and reflect on the bigger picture.

Sarah x

For You personally perhaps that is the case. Not society though. Take a walk down the hallways of my school, take a look at the Music of the youth, the outllok on life. Ask my friends their outllok on life, see if you get a “Philosophical response”. They can’t stand anything to do with the fundamental issues and questions that Philosophy raises. Personal expierence.

 

[atheistgirl]

For You personally perhaps that is the case. Not society though. Take a walk down the hallways of my school, take a look at the Music of the youth, the outllok on life. Ask my friends their outllok on life, see if you get a “Philosophical response”. They can’t stand anything to do with the fundamental issues and questions that Philosophy raises. Personal expierence.

I go into schools every month.

I see fantastic young people battling against racism, poverty, deprivation and abuse to overcome hurdles and build a better life for themselves.

These kids know how to talk.

They’d outphilosophize Socrates himself.

They know about life. They know about things no kid their age should know about!

And they know about what they need and want to be happy. And none of them will tell you things like the latest sneakers, or iphone, or drugs, or anything else like that. These kids know all about the unhappiness chasing these things bring. That’s not where they’re focused at.

These young people give me such hope for the future my own children are going to share with them.

That’s my personal experience.

Sarah x

 

[mymamamary]

I go into schools every month.

I see fantastic young people battling against racism, poverty, deprivation and abuse to overcome hurdles and build a better life for themselves.

These kids know how to talk.

They’d outphilosophize Socrates himself.

They know about life. They know about things no kid their age should know about!

And they know about what they need and want to be happy. And none of them will tell you things like the latest sneakers, or iphone, or drugs, or anything else like that. These kids know all about the unhappiness chasing these things bring. That’s not where they’re focused at.

These young people give me such hope for the future my own children are going to share with them.

That’s my personal experience.

Sarah x

Exactly, which means that hedonism, pleasure for the sake of pleasure is a logical disconnect. However, come to my school. Mediocrity is king. I say this, from personal expierence. I want the world to be light up and on fire (in the good sense), with a love for justice, charity, love itself (Agape), etc.

However, as Our Priest said this weekend in His Homily:

Love for GOD, and Love for Neighbor hinge on each other. Take one away and the other will fall.

 

[atheistgirl]

Exactly, which means that hedonism, pleasure for the sake of pleasure is a logical disconnect.

Nothing wrong with a little bit of pleasure for it’s own sake.

Sarah x

 

[mymamamary]

Nothing wrong with a little bit of pleasure for it’s own sake.

Sarah x

No, I have no problem with pleasure. As long as its enjoyed in its proper context. I think Pleasure is a legitamte gift. Within the context the respective pleasure is supposed to be used.

 

[InJesusItrust]

I think that speaks more on ones anticipation. If you convince some one that he or she will fail at accomplishing the goal of some activity then you will be able to destroy extrinsic motivtions that the person has for that activity. If a person already anticipates failure in the “seeking” activity then it may be evaluated as consuming time with the end result being not finding what is being saught. Convince the person that success is possible and you have removed a demotivating factor. Because there may be other factors at play removing this single demotivator may not immediately result in the person being motivated to seek. What is needed in addition to that would need to be evaluated on a person by person basis.

Pardon my mistakes. Sent from my mobile device.

Still pretty silly considering that if there is no afterlife all the pleasure in the world is rendered moot because your experience and memories of them eventually become non-existent. On the other hand if there is an after-life you will most likely regret not caring to find out.

 

[Pitcharan]

I go into schools every month.

I see fantastic young people battling against racism, poverty, deprivation and abuse to overcome hurdles and build a better life for themselves.

…
These young people give me such hope for the future my own children are going to share with them.

That’s my personal experience.

Sarah x

Love of goodness that neglects or denies the Author is counterfeit love.

 

[Sair]

Hedonism is of course, the Philosophy that Pleasure is the only intrinsic good.

I find a big error in that line of thinking:

If pleasure is the only intrinsic good, then why are Drug addicts among the least happiest of people?

If pleasure is the only intrinsic good, then why do Hollywood movie stars and directors jump off of bridges, when all pleasure is gauranteed to them at a mere whim?

If pleasure is the only intrinisic good, then why do young folks always end up in heartbreak over their BF/GF, even when they share each others body in fornication?

It seems to me that an intrinsic good would be a joyful and fulfilling one, yet all I see is a severe dissatisfaction.

Im challenging the Status Quo, as the Status Quo indeed seems fixiated on the idea of Pleasure as the ultimate and supreme good.

Anyone else want to as well?

If you imagine that fleeting pleasure is the only pleasure that exists, then I perfectly understand why you see hedonism as a flawed philosophy.

Unbeknownst to many who champion the view of hedonism that says, “Do what you want, when you want,” true hedonism seeks the balance of experiences that yields the most lasting pleasure - what Epicurus referred to as ‘tranquility’.

It’s perfectly apparent that overindulgence in any particular pleasure - be it food, mind-altering substances, sex, or other (potentially or actually) dangerous thrills - has a tendency to yield more suffering, in the long term, than it gives actual enjoyment.

True hedonism embraces the fact of nature that there is no such thing as a free lunch. The key is finding the balance.

In addition, true hedonism involves the cultivation of a certain state of mind, in which one actively seeks the pleasure to be found in the necessary tasks of living.

What is often overlooked, also, is the fact that according to Epicurus, the highest and most desirable form of pleasure is friendship - the intellectual and emotional exchange between like-minded beings. Anyone who denies that they seek company for the sake of solace, comfort and positive pleasure is, I think, fooling themselves.

 

[tonyrey]

If you imagine that fleeting pleasure is the only pleasure that exists, then I perfectly understand why you see hedonism as a flawed philosophy.

Unbeknownst to many who champion the view of hedonism that says, “Do what you want, when you want,” true hedonism seeks the balance of experiences that yields the most lasting pleasure - what Epicurus referred to as ‘tranquility’.

It’s perfectly apparent that overindulgence in any particular pleasure - be it food, mind-altering substances, sex, or other (potentially or actually) dangerous thrills - has a tendency to yield more suffering, in the long term, than it gives actual enjoyment.

True hedonism embraces the fact of nature that there is no such thing as a free lunch. The key is finding the balance.

In addition, true hedonism involves the cultivation of a certain state of mind, in which one actively seeks the pleasure to be found in the necessary tasks of living.

What is often overlooked, also, is the fact that according to Epicurus, the highest and most desirable form of pleasure is friendship - the intellectual and emotional exchange between like-minded beings. Anyone who denies that they seek company for the sake of solace, comfort and positive pleasure is, I think, fooling themselves.

Your view is heading towards the truth but it stops short. The highest and most desirable form of happiness springs from love, i.e the unity of individuals.

 

[Sair]

Because all pleasures are finite, but our need in infinite. Only the life everlasting in our LORD’s embrace can meet that need.

No matter how pleasure filled a sinful relationship becomes, it leaves only pain when it comes to an end, as it must do.

Drugs wreck one’s human body and interpersonal life, leaving the user worse off than before.

And no matter what expensive pleasures we can gain, the adventure of human life can only end with our eyes rolled back in our heads.

There is no winning in this game.

Shalom, ICXC NIKA

Here is where I take issue with the apparently standard religious view that experience only has meaning if it lasts forever.

Of course all sensory experience has a temporal existence, so it has an end point. That doesn’t mean it never happened, nor that it had no impact upon our awareness at the time it occurred.

How does this perspective allow us to cope with the fact that death will take us all in the end?

With acceptance and embrace of reality.

From my own recent experience, this has become starkly evident. Our recently-adopted rescue dog killed one of our cats a couple of weeks ago, and as a result, we returned him to the shelter for reassessment - in the hope that he might be adopted into a home without cats to be put at risk. As it turned out, he was found to be too difficult to rehome and so was euthanased. Anyone who loves and respects nonhuman animals will understand how shattered we are by this series of events.

How have we been coping? Both my husband and I are atheists, so we don’t imagine that either our cat or our dog are in a heaven somewhere beyond our sensory perception.

Our beloved cat was four years old when she died. Up until her traumatic end, she had experienced comfort, pleasure and love, to whatever extent she could feel it. The fact that she died in terror and, perhaps, pain (though adrenaline is one of the great mercies of physical existence) in no way changes her previous experience. It doesn’t make it invalid, or cancel out its existence. It doesn’t change the fact that we loved her. By the same token, the fact that our dog succumbed to impulse and killed our cat under the influence of instinct doesn’t change the fact that we took him in with good faith, in confidence that we could integrate him into our household, and gave him a fighting chance at a good life. His death was swift and painless, and it does not cancel out his life.

What I find repugnant about the notion of eternity and immortality is simply that it enshrines the idea that nothing we do actually matters if we don’t somehow last forever - that our actions only have significance if it goes beyond the significance they have in the here and now. Whilst we are alive, when we are in the moment, our experiences do, in fact, matter to us, and really are happening. The focus on eternity is an attempt to deny this.

 

[fpt]

The hedonism in the respect of natural moral law is not truly hedonism.

Hedonism is only of wanting the pleasure as the unique end of his life. Otherwise, it is not hedonism.

Having fun, profiting of pleasure in different forms in the respect of natural order is morally permissible.

**See hedonism everywhere is a wrong view. **