The pursuit of pleasure has been time and time again, is a futile effort. — Wallows
Starting at zero, what goes up must come down. Going up is fun. Going down not so. You can not separate pleasure from pain, the up from the down. However because we are zero dwellers, what comes up from down does not have to go down again but the pleasure we derive from it is the same. -1 to 0 is the same as 0 to 1. — ovdtogt
Yes, I think stability instead of an existence in flux is more desirable, in terms of a happy life? — Wallows
If you could want nothing, like a Buddha, you would have no pain, but also no pleasure. — Pfhorrest
From a Buddhist perspective, soft hedonism is compatible with the notion of reducing pain, rather than increasing pleasure, I think? — Wallows
If you never crave food, eating will not be enjoyable — Pfhorrest
This is incorrect. People are motivated by pleasure and pain. — ovdtogt
It is true enough to say that motivation is based on possible positive and negative outcomes, in the immediate period or in future projections. — I like sushi
In simplistic terms it is kind of a counter position to stoicism. One says ‘take it on the chin’ and the other says ‘don’t even bother to fight, just have fun’. — I like sushi
Even if you crave food the eating need not be enjoyable. What presses your pleasure buttons can be very personal. — ovdtogt
That how drugs work: they directly effect your brain to give what it wants even though it might be detrimental to your overall health and well-being. — ovdtogt
Fear of dying can make you crave food — ovdtogt
It can make you eat dirt, grass and leaves off the tree. Definitely not pleasure or desire is making you eat this stuff. — ovdtogt
Hedonism is a philosophical position that in my view suffers from two main flaws.
===
1) That people are only motivated by pleasure. (a straw man of sorts)
2) This point follows from the first, in that people will encounter a slippery slope fallacy in regards to pleasure, and assume that because of this people will all end up engaging in activities that will promote pleasure.
===
My rebuttal to these two main points that often hedonists tend to get accused of is to profess a soft version of hedonism that limits suffering instead of pleasure. One can assume, that instead of increasing pleasure directly, it will also be present or arise due to less suffering.
Is this a position that many hedonists embrace? It seems like the only "logical" version of hedonism that everyone ought to aspire towards. — Wallows
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.