There are two different causes in play here — TheMadFool

I disagree as the law of Cause and Effect doesn't put two causes into effect at the same time (that would be non sense). Not least because the cause must come from the previous effect otherwise the entire chain would break down into chaos (and that never happens). The motivation behind "giving without receiving" is always the same one.

The cause of Mrs un's pleasure is the same pleasure one gets when they "give to charity". It is the essence of charity and the motivating force behind it. This is just simply another word for Love. When people give Love, they get Love in return from the very act itself. Those to do not give it, do not get it - that's part of the law of Cause and Effect too.

If Mrs un made the cup of tea and you didn't drink it, would she not get the pleasure from it?

There are two different causes in play here - one is knowledge that you like tea and the other is the enjoyment you experience when you're actually drinking the tea. — TheMadFool

No. you are still confused; unconfuse yourself. Causes come before effects. The question is why does Mrs un make tea? The answer is 'her motivation' which is something in her head. That is it's not the tea, not me enjoying tea or her enjoying tea, because there is no tea - she hasn't made it yet. It a thought that causes her to make tea, and there is no reason why it has to be a thought about her pleasure and not about mine. Indeed when she makes tea for me, it would be silly for her to be thinking about her pleasure and not mine - she'd go and put sugar in it - ugh!

No. you are still confused; unconfuse yourself. Causes come before effects. The question is why does Mrs un make tea? The answer is 'her motivation' which is something in her head. That's it not the tea, not me enjoying tea or her enjoying tea, because there is no tea - she hasn't made it yet. It a thought that causes her to make tea, and there is no reason why it has to be a thought about her pleasure and not about mine. Indeed when she makes tea for me, it would be silly for her to thinking about her pleasure and not mine - she'd go and put sugar in it - ugh! — unenlightened

What is the nature of this 'motivation' may I ask? :chin:

What is the nature of this 'motivation' may I ask? — TheMadFool

It's a thought

It's 'in her head'.

It's an image.

Of me drinking tea with pleasure.

And if she is feeling tired, or grumpy, nothing will come of it.
And if she is a manipulative bitch she will be thinking also of the nice things I will do for her later. :hearts: :fire: But this is not necessary. All that is necessary is to have an image of some event or act or result and just do it because why not? As one might draw an owl because one has a pencil and the idea comes to mind. As one puts words together to make a post, and does not need a particular pleasure in putting just these words in this order - they just happen that way, and it is not making more pleasure than if they were put somewhat differently.

And now my question. Why do y'all want to deny that one can be unselfish so determinedly? What is at stake for you?

Of me drinking tea with pleasure. — unenlightened

Right. well Mrs un cannot value the tea she makes for me only for the happiness she derives from it because the happiness she derives comes not from the tea but from my happiness. — unenlightened

While

No, the cause can only be the imagined pleasure, — unenlightened

Sorry for losing track of the discussion. I seem to have zoned out back there.

I don't differentiate between imagined and real pleasure. Where there's pleasure, real/imagined, there's hedonism.

If the answer is "yes" then I'd be pleasantly surprised and would like to request you to tell us what that is that's worth hellfire? Love? Immortality? — TheMadFool

I reject the idea that there is a hell, so the question is moot. I see no evidence that hell exists. It's based on very weak testimonial evidence, to say the least. If there was strong evidence that hell existed, then maybe your question might have merit.

The pain is worth the gain. In other words masochism passes the hedonism test.I believe there are limits to the pain even a masochist will/can endure. However, it does appear that the difference between pain and pleasure gets blurred in masochism. Nevertheless, there is pleasure involved; it's just in a roundabout way. — TheMadFool

To me it only half way counts as hedonism. It is pleasure seeking, but it is also pain seeking. Or are you saying that everything pleasurable is hedonistic?

Also, regarding the question of the limits of pain a masochist is willing to go through, consider Bob Flanagan:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Flanagan

What is hell? You`d have to define it first. And which one? Muslim hell? Buddhist hell? Old testamentarian hell?

I don't differentiate between imagined and real pleasure. — TheMadFool

Don't be a complete dick! You know the difference between imagining the pleasure of eating an ice cream and the pleasure of eating an ice cream. No, this level of bullshit, I cannot be bothered with.

How do you torture a masochist?

Be loving toward him! — Frank Apisa

That won't work at all because a masochist enjoys being tortured. Obviously you have to torture a masochist by kindly indulging her with the torture she loves, which she will hate, which she will love, which she will hate, which she will love...

Or possibly, life is not quite that one-dimensional.

And now my question. Why do y'all want to deny that one can be unselfish so determinedly? What is at stake for you? — unenlightened

No one can answer, because the answer is too simple. So I will answer and you will deny.

One wants every act to be equally hedonistic because it absolves one of moral responsibility. The kind act is as selfish as the unkind, abstemiousness is as self-indulgent as greed, and thus there is no need to make any moral effort at all, or take any responsibility.

Don't be a complete dick! You know the difference between imagining the pleasure of eating an ice cream and the pleasure of eating an ice cream. No, this level of bullshit, I cannot be bothered with. — unenlightened

Sorry if I come off as dick and also for the bullshit in my posts wherever present; both aren't intentional.

What causes Mrs un to make a cup of tea? Obviously, it is not the pleasure of drinking it, because causes have to precede their effects, and the pleasure of drinking always comes after the making. No, the cause can only be the imagined pleasure, and this is the fundamental nature of desire, that it is formed of images from memory that are given an imagined value also from memory and to act according to one's desires is to attempt to realise those images. — unenlightened

Indeed, since causes must precede their effects, the pleasure you experience when you drink tea can't be the cause of kind Mrs. un's desire to make tea for you. However, her imagination lets her know that you will find it pleasurable to drink tea. I guess this is what you refer to by imagined pleasure. Bear in mind that this imagined pleasure is causally relevant in being the cause that motivates Mrs. un and it ultimately originates from the pleasure you get when you drink tea. Since imagined pleasure temporally precedes actions (Mrs. un's imagined pleasure precedes her making tea), no causal laws have been violated and hedonism is true.

unenlightened
4.4k
How do you torture a masochist?

Be loving toward him!
— Frank Apisa

That won't work at all because a masochist enjoys being tortured. Obviously you have to torture a masochist by kindly indulging her with the torture she loves, which she will hate, which she will love, which she will hate, which she will love...

Or possibly, life is not quite that one-dimensional. — unenlightened

:smile:

Great point, un. I got tortured trying to carry all that to its ultimate conclusion. And I am most definitely NOT a masochist.

However, her imagination lets her know that you will find it pleasurable to drink tea. I guess this is what you refer to by imagined pleasure. — TheMadFool

Have we established at last that it is not pleasure that causes tea-making, but the imagination? If so, then it might be clear that there is a difference between Mrs un imagining herself drinking tea, and Mrs un imagining me drinking tea, but it is not a matter of one tasting good and the other not tasting at all. Rather it is a matter of identification.

One identifies with an imagined future self. As one identifies with a remembered past self. Mrs un remembers drinking tea with pleasure, and projects that into the future, and that dual identification makes up the desire for tea that impels her to put the kettle on to make tea for herself.

But when she imagines me drinking tea, there is no identification, but empathising. Empathy is a commonplace thing that makes folks wince when they see someone cut their finger or take pleasure in a baby's smile. but it is very like identification in the way it motivates action.

Identification is selfish, empathy is otherish.

Identification is selfish, empathy is otherish. — unenlightened

:chin:

Well, there's another issue I want to run by you. There's the thing that everyone does - plan ahead; most of our plans, as far as I can tell, involve hedonistic value as in pleasure is the objective. It seems, according to your argument based on causality, that this wouldn't qualify as hedonism because the pleasure comes after the plan.

Hedonism is, to my understanding, simply the position that all that matters is happiness and what bears mentioning is that our plans to do things pleasurable work at two levels: 1. anticipation of pleasure and thus the plan and 2. actual pleasure when what was planned is experienced. As you can see, at both levels pleasure is the key factor and thus, even if the actual pleasure temporally succeeds the plan, the anticipation of it is the plan's maternity ward.

even if the actual pleasure temporally succeeds the plan, the anticipation of it is the plan's maternity ward. — TheMadFool

I think auto-correct is eating your brain. :cry:

So an architect imagines a building and draws plans from his imagination. And one day, planners permitting, and client's finances permitting, some builders realise his plan. And possibly it is a hospital, with a maternity ward. These things happen. And this, for all concerned, is all about pleasure, anticipated and experienced? What makes you think that? Why don't they all smoke crack instead?

I think auto-correct is eating your brain. :cry:

So an architect imagines a building and draws plans from his imagination. And one day, planners permitting, and client's finances permitting, some builders realise his plan. And possibly it is a hospital, with a maternity ward. These things happen. And this, for all concerned, is all about pleasure, anticipated and experienced? What makes you think that? Why don't they all smoke crack instead? — unenlightened

:rofl: I was trying to be as colorful as I could possibly be :rofl:

It's ok. Thank you for your comments.