1) That people are only motivated by pleasure. (a straw man of sorts) — Wallows

This is incorrect. People are motivated by pleasure and pain.

This is incorrect. People are motivated by pleasure and pain. — ovdtogt

Yes, that is true. But, I meant to point out the extremism of certain positions of hedonism wrt. to pleasure.

I should have stated:

1) Pleasure, according to hedonists, is the only good.

1) Pleasure, according to hedonists, is the only good. — Wallows

That is also incorrect. The alleviation of pain is also good.
And all pleasure does eventually become painful and then you have a problem Huston.

That is also incorrect. The alleviation of pain is also good. — ovdtogt

I think, that's what I'm trying to point out here. Pleasure or rather, content or satisfaction, will indirectly be promoted by the alleviation of pain.

Pleasure or rather, content or satisfaction, will indirectly be promoted by the alleviation of pain. — Wallows

Why indirectly? Why not directly?

Why indirectly? Why not directly? — ovdtogt

The pursuit of pleasure has been time and time again a futile effort. The only sure way to promote it, as far as I can tell, is through reducing pain and suffering (pace Schopenhauer).

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 and we do derive pleasure from it. -1 to 0 is the same as 0 to 1 in pleasure terms.

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?

Yes, I think stability instead of an existence in flux is more desirable, in terms of a happy life? — Wallows

Yes, agreed. The source of much dissatisfaction is the instability inherent in modern society.
However too little instability can lead to boredom. It us for everyone of us to find the happy middle ground between boredom and stress. And that is a personal choice.

As I see it, pleasure is identical to the alleviation of pain, broadly construed. Pleasure is the feeling of getting something you want — not just of having it, but of getting it. Pain is the feeling of lacking something you want — not just losing it, but continually so long as you lack it (and still want it). If you never crave food, eating will not be enjoyable. But to crave food is to be hungry, and hunger is a kind of pain, broadly construed. If you could want nothing, like a Buddha, you would have no pain, but also no pleasure. Best, I think, to have what you want and what you can get coincide, either by wanting less or be getting more or some combination of the two. That way you want things and then get them and experience pleasure, but never want things and fail to get them and so experience pain.

If you could want nothing, like a Buddha, you would have no pain, but also no pleasure. — Pfhorrest

Exactly true. Buddha is basically we saying we want to much and therefor have too much pain.
But then again, only a dead person wants nothing.

If you could want nothing, like a Buddha, you would have no pain, but also no pleasure. — Pfhorrest

True wisdom is beyond pain and pleasure. A yogi or sage feels pain and pleasure like anyone else, but does not shun pain or seek pleasure. There are depths beyond the sensory domain which today's sensory culture cannot even begin to imagine.

True wisdom is beyond pain and pleasure. — Wayfarer

True wisdom is knowing what you are talking about and that you clearly do not. There is nothing 'beyond' pain and pleasure and that 'nothing' is called being dead.

From a Buddhist perspective, soft hedonism is compatible with the notion of reducing pain, rather than increasing pleasure, I think?

From a Buddhist perspective, soft hedonism is compatible with the notion of reducing pain, rather than increasing pleasure, I think? — Wallows

I've never heard 'hedonism' of any variety mentioned in Buddhist discourse, although the pursuit of pleasure is generally regarded as a canker and a hindrance.

If you never crave food, eating will not be enjoyable — Pfhorrest

This is incorrect. People are motivated by pleasure and pain. — ovdtogt

That is incorrect neurlogically speaking. Most people think that we are "motivated" by pleasure and pain but neurlogically that's just not the case. There is dopamine then there is things like serotonin. While dopamine is called the "feel good" hormone, it is far from it, it's more like the "want" hormone. There have been experiments on people where neurologists gave people a shot of dopamine for pressing a button, the people kept pressing it incessintly but when asked how it felt to press it they said something along the lines of "awful" and "I don't understand why I'm doing it, but it feels like I have to". The subjects couldn't understand why they wanted to press the button so much but they kept expecting a reward that would never come. Dopamine is responsible for making us WANT things but it doesn't make use enjoy getting them, other hormones such as seratonin do that.

There is a condition where the dopamine system stops functioning but the pleasure centers of the brain don't (I don't remember what it's called) but the result is that patients are taken over by sloth and boredom but they still enjoy things. It's hard to visualise but patients report enjoying food, hobbies and everything else as before but they just "don't feel like" doing them. Their families usually have to tell them to eat or sleep because otherwise they just wouldn't bother, DESPITE still gaining pleasure from all those activities. Idk about pain but it is false that we are "motivated by pleasure", the "motivation" system and the "pleasure" system are not the same system in our brains. That's why you get addiction to smoking, depsite the fact that smoking feels awful as reported by smokers. Smoking tricks the motivation system but doesn't affect the pleasure system, making you crave something you think is disgusting.

It is true enough to say that motivation is based on possible positive and negative outcomes, in the immediate period or in future projections.

There are various neurotransmitters. When it comes to something like ‘motivation’ I’d say GABA is way more influential than anything else - inhibitory function. One thing we’ve become more and more aware of is that all neurotransmitters quite often have completely opposite effects in certain circumstances.

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 don’t see how any serious individual would claim to hold to either view without openly accepting that degrees if resistance are required. No matter what the ‘ethical’ premise is, there is always the embedded problem of how we act in ‘the now’ and what this does for us in ‘the long run’.

One thing I see in both stoicism and hedonism is a system of thought that pays more heed to the immediacy of emotional contents rather than the future repercussions - I’m not saying for an instant that they give ZERO regard to the future, just that they seem to lean more toward the immediate.

I think both are applicable in certain mental states. Sometimes a more ‘harsh’ outlook can rouse an individual to action and sometimes a more ‘rose-tinted’ view can rouse people to action. Adherence to either in a dogmatic sense is both dangerous and futile - for others if not for theirselves.

All perspectives have their own little seductions, so in this sense ‘doubt’ should be our home of contemplation where ‘lack of doubt’ is the path of exploration (full of woe, injury and the occasional reward if we’re astute enough to temper the seductions of ‘the new’ before they habituate us into stagnation).

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

How do you explain the motivation to smoke? It has negative outcomes in the short and long term

If you never crave food, eating will not be enjoyable — Pfhorrest

Even if you crave food the eating need not be enjoyable. What presses your pleasure buttons can be very personal.

om a Buddhist perspective, soft hedonism is compatible with the notion of reducing pain, rather than increasing pleasure, I think? — Wallows

Exactly

If you never crave food, eating will not be enjoyable — Pfhorrest

If you don't crave food you wil eat out of not desire. We don't desire to live most of time, we fear to die.

How do you explain the motivation to smoke? It has negative outcomes in the short and long term — khaled

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.

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

No not at all. It understand that by fighting you have already lost the battle. You must try to prevent the fighting in the first place.

Stoicism only makes sense if you are incapable of affecting your circumstances.

Even if you crave food the eating need not be enjoyable. What presses your pleasure buttons can be very personal. — ovdtogt

I thought you were the one that said "We are driven by pleasure and pain". Why would you crave food then if you do not find it enjoyable. Are you saying something else other than taste might be causing the drive.

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

I understand.... I'm just pointing out that drugs don't follow the "Driven by pleasure and pain" perspective you proposed.

Why would you crave food then if you do not find it enjoyable. — khaled

Fear of dying can make you crave food. It can make you eat dirt, grass and leaves off the tree. Definitely not pleasure or desire is making you eat this stuff.

Fear of dying can make you crave food — ovdtogt

I don't think many patients would report that they eat food because they dread non existence.

It can make you eat dirt, grass and leaves off the tree. Definitely not pleasure or desire is making you eat this stuff. — ovdtogt

When you're near starvation... Which is not the situation discussed at all. Also please explain why anyone would smoke if we are purely motivated by pleasure and pain.

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

It seems there's a big difference between hedonism, the philosophy, and a hedonistic lifestyle.

The philosophy of hedonism is one of the most candid and unambiguous of philosophies concerning humanity. All of us want pleasure and can anyone doubt that? We can further subdivide hedonism into negative hedonism which I equate to your "soft hedonism" aiming to reduce suffering and positive hedonism which is basically seeking pleasure.

Is it me or do people frown on pleasure, especially if it's indiscreet and borders on what people see as debauchery when they see it in close proximity, either in time or space, to something that's an obvious tragedy. For instance if a disaster kills some people then festivals, parties, concerts, etc. are cancelled. Although this may not be the correct description, people don't like to engage in guilty pleasures and that's for a good reason - opposites, here happiness and suffering, annihilate each other. I think empathy makes it difficult, if not impossible, to partake of pleasure in the presence of suffering.

What's interesting is that time and place have nothing to do with suffering and pleasure. Suffering and pleasure are timeless and space-transcending. Suffering a broken heart is same in 1930 and 2019 or whether in Indiq or Indiana. Ergo, the temporal and spatial proximity of suffering we seem to care about is simply a matter of how easily the fact of suffering reaches our ears. It boils down to awareness of suffering that adds the "guilty" to "pleasure" making it difficult to enjoy in the presence of pain.

Given that there's so much suffering in the world and knowing that positive hedonism doesn't fly once we become aware of this truth, we should stress on negative hedonism - the lessening of suffering in the world. The difference between negative hedonism and positive hedonism is our awareness, or the lack of it, of the world's suffering.

Yet, there seems to be no perceptible change in people's behavior despite their awareness of world hunger, under-5 child mortality, etc. Where is that feeling that should stop us in our tracks from watching sit-coms, going to amusement parks, and partying until dawn? Doesn't this mean we're callous and selfish?

To answer that question we must remember that we're all in the same boat and everyone, with no exceptions, is trying their best to just stay one tiny step ahead of the tsunami of misery that's at everybody's heels. We shouldn't begrudge a person who works hard to feed her family the pleasures he indulges in because we all know everyone needs a breather from tedium. It's not that such people are being insensitive to the suffering of others. They're just too exhausted to react.

Negative hedonism should be a priority. Suffering should be considered enemy number 1. However, there is no fault in engaging in pleasure.

Yes. :)

Yes. :) — Wallows

Really?