Sign in or 
Share this
Showing 10 posts
|
GeneDouglas |
Hedonism
Aug 7 2007, 11:21 PM EDT
The items on hedonism offer some food for thought. The statement that the purpose of our actions is the seeking of pleasure seems to have an element of truth about it. Of course, we can find exceptions, such that the statement must become more complicated.
For example, we know that short-term forgoing of pleasure can lead to greater pleasure, such as saving our money for a later and larger purpose, for example. And a moment's displeasure can lead to greater pleasure, so we go to the doctor or dentist, even if the experience will be unpleasant at the time. And there is the fact that if every person looked only after his own pleasure, the community would suffer. With fewer benefits from the community, we would suffer as individuals. So we pay our taxes, help other people, and possibly somebody will help us when we need it, and we will drive on good streets and our children will attend good schools. Ayn Rand, in her "objectivism," advocated a rather extreme hedonism, in which she said that if one had to choose between a career or taking care of his aged mother, he should choose the career. If this were the case with most people, we would all suffer from the decisions of others, and overall pleasure in life would be reduced. Further, we are created to feel such things as sympathy, love, shame and guilt. Neglecting our loved ones would produce negative feelings, such that our selfish choices would actually add to our misery, unless we happen to be sociopaths. The person who sacrifices to care for their children experiences less displeasure in life than had he chosen not to do so. His inner sense of decency would otherwise nag at him and ruin the selfish pleasure he was trying to grab for himself. All these factors must be considered when suggesting that the purpose of our activity is the finding of pleasure. Then the statement has a greater ring of truth about it. Do you find this valuable? |
eksortso |
1. RE: Hedonism
Sep 21 2008, 6:44 PM EDT
Actually, your position on hedonism is closer to objectivism than you may care to admit. I won't quote Ayn Rand here, because as much as I value her thought, she is a lightning rod.I have to disagree with your choice of example to illustrate "hedonism." Don't know which is more pleasurable, building your career or taking care of your elderly mother. Neither seems pleasurable on its surface, because both involve quite a bit of hard work. And of the two, taking care of one's mother is the more "pleasurable" of the alternatives. But if I were a young man, then no matter how comfortable I could make my mother in her old age, I couldn't support her for long if I didn't have a way to support her. Building that career could make it easier for me to take care of my mother in her old age. And would a good mother want her children to give up their lives for her comfort? Real life is complicated. Pleasure is always short-lived. We can't live a good life chasing after pleasure, no matter the sources. I know, because I tried and I failed. Anyway, objectivism isn't founded on pleasure, but on living well for the long term. William Thomas has written a short article on hedonism, in which he concludes that life, not pleasure, is the ultimate value, though they are interrelated. http://www.atlassociety.org/cth-32-1619-Hedonism.aspx Do you find this valuable? |
|
GeneDouglas |
2. RE: Hedonism
Sep 21 2008, 8:39 PM EDT
In addition to pleasure, there is the avoidance of displeasure. The conscientious person who neglects his ill mother to advance his career would suffer guilt, and thus greater displeasure than if he had lost the opportunity to advance himself, but not neglected his mother. I have known people who have lived on a much reduced economic standard because they were caring for somebody. And there is the overall degree of community pleasure to consider. If we are a pack of animals each looking out for himself, then all suffer, and the individual who thinks only of himself suffers also. There may be some winners and some losers in the game, but overall, with total points added together for pleasure and displeasure, total displeasure is up in such an environment. Do you find this valuable? |
|
eksortso |
3. RE: Hedonism
Sep 22 2008, 10:41 AM EDT
The fact that we do act to avoid displeasure means that pleasure alone is not a beacon for a well-lived life. Pleasure isn't even a decent guide for personal interaction. Sympathy is a better guide, but it's reasoned response that turns sympathetic feelings into mutual happiness.Does the man who cares for his aging mother only think of himself? He can't directly experience her health and state of mind. But he knows that having her in his life is worthwhile, so her happiness is a part of his own. It's in his self-interest. And he ought to act accordingly, if she really means so much to him! Doesn't that make sense? This all depends on one unspoken assumption: the man cares for his mother. I'm happy to report that most people love their parents. But I've seen manipulative mothers, the sort that abandon their children but still expect the same affection from them. When these children grow up, should we really expect them to drop everything for their cruel mothers' comfort? But I digress. I'd rather talk about sympathy and where it comes from. Sympathy is a deeply spiritual value, one that is fostered in our minds. Where does sympathy emerge from a pursuit of pleasure? We take great pleasure in spending time with family and friends. But in a big society, we can't get to know everyone. Ultimately, we just act civilly. But civility is still a chosen virtue, chosen by individuals. It's unfair to reduce people's lives to aggregate totals of pluses and minuses. We each have our own lives, and we share it with others as we each see fit. But when we come together, we can sympathize with each other, we can talk about what would be best for us all, and we can find something to rally around. we ought to seek to advance our own lives, together. Heck, it might even feel good! Do you find this valuable? |
|
eksortso |
4. RE: Hedonism
Sep 22 2008, 10:53 AM EDT
"I have known people who have lived on a much reduced economic standard because they were caring for somebody."By the way, I have known people like you have described. I knew a girl who took a year off from work to take care of her elderly grandmother, who had been living in a nursing home. That was her choice, and she lived by it. I don't know how they made ends meet, but they managed. The girl may have been more duty-bound than sympathy-driven, though. When she told me what she was quitting her job to take care of her grandmother, I said, "You must really love your grandmother." She appeared stunned. I don't think I'll never forget that. The girl moved her grandmother into her home, and took care of her up to the end. I wonder how the girl is doing today. Do you find this valuable? |
|
Posted Anonymously |
5. RE: Hedonism
Sep 22 2008, 12:05 PM EDT
Your friend may have been stunned because she took it for granted, and never considered that there was an alternative.I suspect that part of our response to a community is that we are descended from group-living creatures, and our evolution has been more successful because of that. A minority of us are sociopaths, interacting on the level of intelligent reptiles. We would probably be unsuccessful as a group if we were all like that, and our total level of misery would be greater as a result. Do you find this valuable? |
|
eksortso |
6. RE: Hedonism
Sep 22 2008, 7:30 PM EDT
Whoof, harsh. I'm pretty sure that she did love her grandmother!I don't know her whole story, so I can't draw any deeper conclusions than that. Well, actually, I just thought of something. Both of her parents had died, so maybe they were the only family that they had left. I was going to say something earlier about mirror neurons and such, to try and tie sympathy to hard scientific research. And I'm just starting to read Barbara Oakley's "Evil Genes," which discusses Machiavellian traits and the mental disorders that can lead to them. Anonymous, you might be interested in that. But we don't need to delve into evolutionary psychology too deeply to discuss morality. However our brains work, however they evolved, we need to figure out how best to live with what we've got now. Some people may need medication or therapy to get there, especially if they are violent or deceitful! Other than those rare exceptions, though, we should be able to sort things out. We have for millions of years, and since our awareness of rational thought has grown and spread, our development as human beings has been phenomenal, to put it mildly! Do you find this valuable? |
|
GeneDouglas |
7. RE: Hedonism
Sep 23 2008, 6:33 AM EDT
Somebody once said my grandmother was a sweet, kindly person. I was startled, because I thought that was just taken for granted, and was speechless for a moment. There are creatures you couldn't teach to care, including the insects and most of the reptiles. (A mother alligator will move her hatchlings to a different place, which is different from a turtle just abandoning its eggs, so there are exceptions. A mother wildebeest will make a token effort to protect her calf, but gives up easily.) Other creatures, such as apes and elephants, protect those who are siblings and more distantly related. It appears to make their kind successful. Most of us, who are not defective, have a capacity for caring, which can't be taught to a stone or a tree. With the right mechanisms in place, including training and observation of example, one can experience pleasure with an increase of self-esteem for making a sacrifice, and a reduction of the guilt he would feel if he did not. There would also be the imagined pain of losing a loved one or imagining the suffering of a loved one had he done otherwise. So he does the unselfish thing, thus reducing his pain had he taken the other choice, and perhaps increasing his pleasure with increased self-esteem and perhaps even recognition from others. Do you find this valuable? |
|
eksortso |
8. RE: Hedonism
Sep 23 2008, 10:11 PM EDT
Forgive me if I equivocate, Gene, but I don't see where we disagree, other than semantically. Maybe we can frame the whole issue of hedonism in terms that don't pit selfishness against selflessness. Maybe we've already framed it in terms of both!I don't confuse meaningful sacrifice with empty selflessness. And I certainly hope you don't think that I'm a defective sociopath for holding an egoistic ethic. So please don't confuse narcissism with rational self-interest, and do understand that I think your heart's in the right place. If you want the last word, you've got it. Do you find this valuable? |
|
Posted Anonymously |
9. RE: Hedonism
Sep 24 2008, 7:57 AM EDT
One could also consider the soldier, who sacrifices for people he doesn't even know, though one would probably cover the same ground, though on a different level. Also the community worker or politician, who does the same, and in the end receives the same benefits, which in the end add up to minimizing displeasure and maximizing pleasure -- within the parameters permitted by the situation. The illusion probably comes from those limitations, which don't always allow for obvious pleasure, but sometimes just permits the actor to choose between bad and worse.
Do you find this valuable?
|
