Why does there have to be a why? It ends here.

Why does there have to be a why? It ends here. — Banno

A character in a book I once read was constantly asked the following question by his wife: do you love me? He always answered "yes" because he did but then his wife would ask the follow up question: why do you love me? I don't recall the answers he gave to the last question but he always did answer, give a reason for his love, which may or may not have satisfied his wife's curiosity cum expectations.


Too, the distinction lower pleasures vs higher pleasures seems to be particularly relevant to our discussion.

The lower pleasures (eating, sex, etc.) are of the type we can't ask "why?". "Why do you like sex/food?" is a question that can't be answered adequately. The act of eating and making love are pleasurable in and of themselves. There is no other reason for our pleasure in sex and eating.

Higher pleasures aren't like that. "Why do you find art/doing something good pleasurable?" is a valid question and people will generally answer this question by revealing what particular facet of art/morality they find pleasurable. The same goes for other types of higher pleasures.

It seems John Stuart Mill's thoughts on the matter were along the same lines - 'twas him who made the distinction higher and lower pleasures. To follow in his footsteps then I should say that "why does something give you pleasure?" is a question about higher pleasures and not about lower pleasures. It has an answer for the former and, I think, no answer in the latter.

Talking of infinite loops. Have a chat with a compulsive gambler, who may be a close friend of the compulsive arguer.

Why do you gamble?
Because I like winning.
But you are losing thousands overall.
But I win sometimes.

Thus the philosopher of hedonism comes to notice that the reason one does something and the result of doing it may not always be identical.

Why do people have accidents?

Yes. that would end the regress but you don't know WHY? X makes you happy. — TheMadFool

And why does posting that post make you happy?

Like you pointed out, maybe if something makes one feel pleasure then, that's all there is to it; it may not be possible to pin down what about that something causes one's pleasure. — TheMadFool

I guess to elaborate a bit, I would say that it’s the effect of the “something” that makes it pleasurable; the effect being that it stimulates your brain in a particular way. And this would be true of all pleasures; high or low.

However, note that there's always something that causes (gives) pleasure. Pleasure can't be experienced without engaging in something. I mean I can't simply decide one fine day that I want to feel pleasure and by that desire alone start experiencing pleasure. — TheMadFool

Right, but anything can be pleasurable if it stimulates your brain in a particular way. I think asking why something stimulates your brain in this way is a nonsensical question akin to asking why hydrogen and oxygen molecules can combine to form water. That something stimulates your brain in a particular way is an irreducible fact. As you mention, there is also no choice in the matter of whether something is or isn’t pleasurable, it’s simply an automatic reaction that can’t be helped. The caveat being that pleasurable objects can be paired with positive punishment, which if done repeatedly, results in the once pleasurable object becoming associated with suffering, which causes it to no longer be viewed as pleasurable, but as a trigger.

Talking of infinite loops. Have a chat with a compulsive gambler, who may be a close friend of the compulsive arguer.

Why do you gamble?
Because I like winning.
But you are losing thousands overall.
But I win sometimes.

Thus the philosopher of hedonism comes to notice that the reason one does something and the result of doing it may not always be identical. — unenlightened

Well, sometimes the end result or outcome is unknown and happiness is tied to one or more of them. That the desired outcome(s) failed to materialize doesn't mean that our aims were not hedonistic. Shit happens!

Why do people have accidents? — unenlightened

Shit happens! And just because luck/fate may not be on our side - sometimes our plans go awry - it doesn't mean that our ultimate aim isn't happiness.

And why does posting that post make you happy? — A Seagull

That's exactly the type of question that kickstarts the hedonistic infinity.

I guess to elaborate a bit, I would say that it’s the effect of the “something” that makes it pleasurable; the effect being that it stimulates your brain in a particular way. And this would be true of all pleasures; high or low. — Pinprick

Yes, happiness is caused and hence it's perfectly reasonable to ask what it is about something that makes one happy.

Right, but anything can be pleasurable if it stimulates your brain in a particular way. I think asking why something stimulates your brain in this way is a nonsensical question akin to asking why hydrogen and oxygen molecules can combine to form water. — Pinprick

Like you said, happiness is an "effect". Why should inquiring about the cause be nonsensical?

Like you said, happiness is an "effect". — TheMadFool

Indeed. And circularity results from conflating the imagined effect as cause of action with the actual effect as result of action.

I act to realise an imagined happy result. Thus it helps to have a realistic imagination. A good architect has a realistic imagination to the extent that her buildings don't immediately fall down, whereas a gambling addict has an unrealistic imagination, such that his imagined winnings materialise as losses.

And why does posting that post make you happy? — A Seagull
That's exactly the type of question that kickstarts the hedonistic infinity. — TheMadFool

Well is there ANYTHING that cannot be made into an infinity in this way? Give me an example.

Yes, happiness is caused and hence it's perfectly reasonable to ask what it is about something that makes one happy. — TheMadFool

This is where the difference between causes/explanations and reasons is important. If you want to know the cause of happiness, I would again point to whatever’s going on in our brains we we feel happy, which would be an explanation. Whereas if you’re asking for reasons, I would have to articulate a, possibly fabricated, rationalization that happens to make sense to me personally, and in my mind justifies my feeling of happiness.

Like you said, happiness is an "effect". Why should inquiring about the cause be nonsensical? — TheMadFool

It’s not, but asking “why” isn’t asking for a cause; it’s asking for a reason.

The cause maybe some neurochemical phenonmenon but the reason is what triggers it. For instance, if someone derives pleasure from philosophy, the reason maybe because of the importance it gives to rationality; this reason then becomes the cause of the neurochemical phenonmenon we call pleasure.

Indeed. And circularity results from conflating the imagined effect as cause of action with the actual effect as result of action.

I act to realise an imagined happy result. Thus it helps to have a realistic imagination. A good architect has a realistic imagination to the extent that her buildings don't immediately fall down, whereas a gambling addict has an unrealistic imagination, such that his imagined winnings materialise as losses — unenlightened

No matter how things may turn out, the winner and loser (gambling analogy) both want pleasure - one gets lucky or is genius and the other is unlucky or is a moron.

Well is there ANYTHING that cannot be made into an infinity in this way? Give me an example. — A Seagull

That I don't have to do so long as you accept hedonism leads to an infinity of causes for happiness.

No matter how things may turn out, the winner and loser (gambling analogy) both want pleasure — TheMadFool

If you make this a universal truth, and you certainly can do that, you are not saying very much.

The masochist wants the pleasure of pain; the altruist wants the pleasure of being unselfish; the suicide wants the pleasure of non-existence. It becomes a bit vacuous. Hedonism is no longer a way of life that one can follow (or not), but simply a grammatical necessity. Do you want to talk about the pleasure of dying for your country? It sounds a bit daft to me.

If you make this a universal truth, and you certainly can do that, you are not saying very much.

The masochist wants the pleasure of pain; the altruist wants the pleasure of being unselfish; the suicide wants the pleasure of non-existence. It becomes a bit vacuous. Hedonism is no longer a way of life that one can follow (or not), but simply a grammatical necessity. Do you want to talk about the pleasure of dying for your country? It sounds a bit daft to me — unenlightened

Hey, unenlightened. The point you raise here has been bothering me for sometime and I don't quite get it. Why is it vacuous and daft to claim a universal truth?

The following categorical statements are not devoid of meaning:

All acts are hedonistic acts

All objectives (aims) are hedonistic objectives (aims)

What's daft or vacuous about the above two universal claims?

All acts are hedonistic acts — TheMadFool

What this means is that 'hedonistic act' becomes an oxymoron.

All sugar is sweet. So no-one bothers to advertise "sweet sugar", because there is no other kind.

But there are many different kinds of act, and kinds of motivation. So let's not pretend that there is no difference between wanting to please one's partner, and wanting to please oneself. There is a difference.

What this means is that 'hedonistic act' becomes an oxymoron.

All sugar is sweet. So no-one bothers to advertise "sweet sugar", because there is no other kind.

But there are many different kinds of act, and kinds of motivation. So let's not pretend that there is no difference between wanting to please one's partner, and wanting to please oneself. There is a difference. — unenlightened

Thanks but you're referring to analytic truths (did I get that right?). All acts are hedonistic acts is not an analytic truth. Looks like a synthetic truth claim to me.

Thanks but you're referring to analytic truths (did I get that right?). — TheMadFool

No. 'Sugar is sweet' is not analytic.

'Sweetener is sweet' is more or less analytic.

'These apples are sweet' is actually worth knowing, because 'these other apples are unripe and extremely sour.' So not all apples are sweet.

All acts are hedonistic acts is not an analytic truth. Looks like a synthetic truth claim to me. — TheMadFool

"Altruistic acts are hedonistic." Do you think so? This looks to me like the claim that sour apples are sweet.
Or perhaps you prefer:
"There are no altruistic acts." As if there were no sour apples. And since there are many acts that people call altruism, hence the word has a use, you would have to defend that with an appeal to psychological insight into motivation as per my much earlier post. and it becomes a contrived and unhelpful psychology that just insists for no particular reason that everyone is always selfish.

"Dogs always want to bite, and when they are not biting it's because they are afraid to bite, but they still want to." Such an appeal to invisible motives that even become invisible to the one motivated, is unassailable. Unassailable at the cost of both vacuity and of doing violence to the language. And at this point, I think I have been right round the roundabout, and kind enough for long enough, and will now leave you to your hedonistic infinity. Enjoy.

Well is there ANYTHING that cannot be made into an infinity in this way? Give me an example. — A Seagull
That I don't have to do so long as you accept hedonism leads to an infinity of causes for happiness. — TheMadFool

As I have pointed out before happiness is. End of story.

Your idea of infini9ty of causes or at least an infinity of questions can be applied to any idea. Your failure to provide a viable counter example shows that you implicitly agree with me, albeit perhaps not consciously.

The cause maybe some neurochemical phenonmenon but the reason is what triggers it. For instance, if someone derives pleasure from philosophy, the reason maybe because of the importance it gives to rationality; this reason then becomes the cause of the neurochemical phenonmenon we call pleasure. — TheMadFool

I disagree. Experiencing pleasure, or anything else is a direct consequence of what is going on in our brains, and whatever is going on in our brains is a direct consequence of whatever is going on externally (and sometimes internally as well). It’s all one big causal chain. If philosophy is pleasurable it is because doing philosophy causes certain mental states that cause the experience of pleasure. If you want to break what philosophy is into individual processes (i.e. rational analysis, abstract thought, etc.), then it may be that one, some, or the combination of all of them at once cause pleasure, but there still is no need to provide reasons. Consider pain. Would you argue that there is a reason getting cut is painful? You could claim that getting cut is painful because it punctures the skin, but that is still just a cause, and really just replacing the word cut with a synonym, so you aren’t getting any closer to some foundation or essence of pain. Pain is simply any stimuli that causes certain mental states that result in the feeling of pain. There may be many different stimuli that cause these states, but that is the only thing they have in common. Hence the conversation begins and ends there, unless you want to further pursue the evolutionary causes of why we experience these stimuli as pain.

If philosophy is pleasurable it is because doing philosophy causes certain mental states that cause the experience of pleasure. — Pinprick

Consider pain. Would you argue that there is a reason getting cut is painful? You could claim that getting cut is painful because it punctures the skin, but that is still just a cause, and really just replacing the word cut with a synonym, so you aren’t getting any closer to some foundation or essence of pain — Pinprick

In my discussion with Banno, I mentioned how lower pleasures differ from higher pleasures in being not amenable to the question "why?" i.e. finding a reason for why lower pleasures are pleasurable may not be possible. How would you answer the question: why do you find sex pleasurable? It's difficult if not impossible to say the least.

In contrast, for higher pleasures, there usually are reasons for why they are pleasurable. For instance people may find art pleasing because of style, theme, the interplay of colors, the message contained therein, etc.

I believe that these reasons (for higher pleasures) becomes the cause for the mental states that correlate with the sensation/feeling of plesasure.

As I have pointed out before happiness is. End of story.

Your idea of infini9ty of causes or at least an infinity of questions can be applied to any idea. Your failure to provide a viable counter example shows that you implicitly agree with me, albeit perhaps not consciously. — A Seagull

It isn't hard to understand the idea of the hedonistic infinity. Consider anything you like or find pleasurable but do keep to higher pleasures - things that engage the intellect, aesthetic sense, etc.; then ask yourself why you find that thing plesaurable. You will have an answer. Ask the same question of that answer and so on.

You didn't answer my question.

Why is "all acts are hedonistic acts" a vacuous/daft statement?

In contrast, for higher pleasures, there usually are reasons for why they are pleasurable. For instance people may find art pleasing because of style, theme, the interplay of colors, the message contained therein, etc. — TheMadFool

I’m not convinced that’s true. If a category, like art, is pleasurable it is most likely because of the various parts that “art” contains; style, theme, etc. However, I don’t think that any one part can be said to cause pleasure, it is the combination of all the parts that make it pleasurable. I’m not even sure if it’s possible to experience these parts in isolation. A piece of art necessarily contains a style, theme, etc. You can’t experience only a style with no theme, and vice versa. I think the same holds true for any intellectual form of pleasure. Philosophy necessarily includes things like logical analysis, so it may be tempting to point to something like this as the reason it is pleasurable, but logical analysis necessarily includes content/subject matter. They’re inseparable from one another, just like all the parts that make up philosophy or art, or whatever.

I’m not convinced that’s true. If a category, like art, is pleasurable it is most likely because of the various parts that “art” contains; style, theme, etc. However, I don’t think that any one part can be said to cause pleasure, it is the combination of all the parts that make it pleasurable. I’m not even sure if it’s possible to experience these parts in isolation. A piece of art necessarily contains a style, theme, etc. You can’t experience only a style with no theme, and vice versa. I think the same holds true for any intellectual form of pleasure. Philosophy necessarily includes things like logical analysis, so it may be tempting to point to something like this as the reason it is pleasurable, but logical analysis necessarily includes content/subject matter. They’re inseparable from one another, just like all the parts that make up philosophy or art, or whatever. — Pinprick

Well, true to what I said, you gave some reasons for why art or philosophy is pleasurable. The same applies to all higher pleasures in that they possess some qualities that afford pleasure to us.

It isn't hard to understand the idea of the hedonistic infinity. Consider anything you like or find pleasurable but do keep to higher pleasures - things that engage the intellect, aesthetic sense, etc.; then ask yourself why you find that thing plesaurable. You will have an answer. Ask the same question of that answer and so on. — TheMadFool

You are repeating yourself. Presumably you can do this endlessly.

You are repeating yourself. Presumably you can do this endlessly — A Seagull

:up:

You are repeating yourself. Presumably you can do this endlessly — A Seagull — Pantagruel

Liar!

?

Since infinity is endless, it follows that it's impossible to ever know what exactly it is about the things we find pleasurable that makes these things pleasurable. — TheMadFool

Usually this ends in death. Too much pleasure itself is mortifying.