Sometimes the word "valuable" seems synonymous with creating pleasure

For example I value music because it gives me pleasure and I value charity because it increases well being.

But does pleasure have a value in itself?

I am using this definition of value "the regard that something is held to deserve; the importance, worth, or usefulness of something." A situation I am thinking of is enjoying food.

Is the mere fact that you are in a state of pleasure valuable outside of any other context. Or is pleasure only of value when it is attached to a meaningful or ethical outcome. Definitions are tricky here because valuable, meaningful, pleasurable and ethical may have multiple meaning but also may rely on each other for part of their meaning.

Is there a value higher than pleasure? Does pleasure equal hedonism and act more like an insatiable addiction? — Andrew4Handel

One thing I noticed and I'm not that much of a noticer is that all emotions seem to be reactions in the sense they're an effect, a response, to something. Rudimentary understanding of causality says that causes must precede effects and the theory of evolution, if true, would require things that have some value to survival be causally associated with pleasure to keep organisms like us motivated in the pursuit of these values. Doesn't that mean that pleasure is just a reward system put in place by evolutionary processes to ensure that we become and remain addicted to stuff that are survival oriented? In other words traits that are basic survival tools were, at some point in our evolutionary history, coupled with a pleasure center for obvious reasons and this implies that pleasure, despite the claims of hedonism, doesn't possess an intrinsic value of its own - it's simply there to keep us coming back for more, all the while promoting behavior that's good for the success of the species in the game of life.

Is there a value higher than pleasure? Does pleasure equal hedonism and act more like an insatiable addiction? — Andrew4Handel

"Value" can be divided into two general categories : positive value (Good) and negative value (Bad). Hence, "Pleasure" is a sub-category under Good, and "Pain" a sub-species of Bad. Then, Pleasure can be further analyzed into a> physical pleasure and b> metaphysical pleasure. Our genes have predisposed us to seek Good and avoid Bad. That inherent motivation is what we call "emotions" (physical) & "feelings" (mental), both of which which have a physical basis in neurotransmitters that sometimes urge us toward "insatiable addictions. But in rational humans, pleasure can also have a metaphysical mental basis (concepts, beliefs), that some call "sublime". Consequently, if you accept the notion that excellent ideals (agape love) can be more perfect than physical reality, then you could say that there is "a value higher than physical pleasure" : Self-seeking Hedonism vs Self-restraint. :smile:

pleasure, despite the claims of hedonism, doesn't possess an intrinsic value of its own - it's simply there to keep us coming back for more, all the while promoting behavior that's good for the success of the species in the game of life. — TheMadFool

A lot of species reproduce without the aid of pleasure. Sexual pleasure is most pronounced in humans but not necessary in things like plants and fish. Sexual pleasure has lead to a huge proliferation of pornography which in itself does not lead to reproduction. Pleasure seeking seems somewhat divorced from survival in this sense.

But morality, which is most pronounced in humans seems to be most concerned with welfare/pleasure.

Utilitarianism which talks of "the greatest good" seems pleasure based also.

I feel like we need to transcend pleasure as a source of motivation or as an end goal. I am not sure why exactly. But facts don't seem to have any relation to pleasure. The evolutionary picture has been seen at odds with facts. Are our beliefs motivated by survival and success or unemotional reason?

Personally I don't know what to pursue. Should I pursue pleasure or some other kind of state of enlightenment?

Consequently, if you accept the notion that excellent ideals (agape love) can be more perfect than physical reality, then you could say that there is "a value higher than physical pleasure" : Self-seeking Hedonism vs Self-restraint — Gnomon

I feel that any positive language like "excellent" equates with pleasure. The whole notion of positivity seems synonymous with pleasure.

I think it is hard to transcend our bodily needs like hunger, thirst and lust. It seems that a lot of progress has been made in societies where intellectuals can work without the threat of hunger or thirst.

It might be that we need to reach a certain state of pleasure or equilibrium/stability before we can start to explore issues unrelated to immediate survival.

I don't know whether pleasure is motivational or demotivating. (Carrot versus stick) personally I feel that not being depressed or pessimistic may lead to me being more creative. May be pleasure just makes you care about anything...and not give up.

But does pleasure have a value in itself? — Andrew4Handel

Absolutely! At every moment we have an emotional state that corresponds to the information creating our consciousness at any given time. The emotional state has a value of being either painful or pleasurable, or something in between. This value orients us in our reality.

Everybody has a slightly different personally constructed interpretation of reality. We do not calculate the quality of our reality rationally, and compare it to every other moment of the day to ascertain its value - rather we feel the emotional value of the moment, and this tells us whether our present reality is painful or pleasurable, or something in between. Thus we are alerted to, and oriented in our reality via an emotional gradient.

This is the value of pleasure and all other emotions - they form an emotional gradient, that orients us in our personal reality, and they also provide impetus for behavior. If the current moment is painful we do something about it, If it is pleasurable we keep going.

We are a pleasure seeking, pain avoiding animal. We can not do anything about this as this is precisely what provides impetus to our behavior and, I believe, ultimately to life.

Sometimes the word "valuable" seems synonymous with creating pleasure

For example I value music because it gives me pleasure and I value charity because it increases well being.

But does pleasure have a value in itself?

I am using this definition of value "the regard that something is held to deserve; the importance, worth, or usefulness of something." A situation I am thinking of is enjoying food.

Is the mere fact that you are in a state of pleasure valuable outside of any other context. Or is pleasure only of value when it is attached to a meaningful or ethical outcome. Definitions are tricky here because valuable, meaningful, pleasurable and ethical may have multiple meaning but also may rely on each other for part of their meaning.

Is there a value higher than pleasure? Does pleasure equal hedonism and act more like an insatiable addiction? — Andrew4Handel

Your ‘state of pleasure’ is not a fact - it’s a subjective relation.

Value in its simplest form has three categories: positive, negative and infinite. But it also has both qualitative and quantitative aspects. ‘Pleasure’ is a positive qualitative relation, and is itself variable according to arousal: how much you are enjoying the food, for example. You cannot accurately measure or define pleasure without also referring to a level of arousal in the subject. Likewise, an application of effort or arousal must be qualified in the subject as a relation of valence (attraction/repulsion).

It is the phrase ‘in the subject’ that is often forgotten. From our subjective position, we can reduce qualitative values of an ‘object’ to a relational binary, and we can reduce any quantitative value to an ‘objective’ numerical position. But in order to understand their objective relation to each other, we need to accurately position the subject in a six-dimensional structure of meaning, value, time, space, direction and distance. Otherwise, any ‘definition’ must be understood as relative to the position of the subject.

So ‘pleasure’ in itself refers to an idea: the imagined quantitative limitation of a positive qualitative relation. It’s a five-dimensional horizon, so to speak. Beyond it is pure relation: what meaning exists regardless of perceived value.

I think there are facts such as 2 + 2 = 4 that do not rely on our emotional response to them.

I agree that pleasure is motivational but it seems not to value facts.

That said I think pain is good indicator of something being wrong (whatever wrong means) I have focused on pleasure here but ironically pain seems to be a more powerful informant.

I have focused on pleasure here but ironically pain seems to be a more powerful informant. — Andrew4Handel

They are part of a pain pleasure spectrum. It is an emotional gradient. I have a theory of consciousness here if you wish to read more.

:up:

I feel like we need to transcend pleasure as a source of motivation or as an end goal. I am not sure why exactly. But facts don't seem to have any relation to pleasure. — Andrew4Handel

I will refer you to vital signs, if we are talking facts. All the measurements of pulses, heart rate, blood pressure, and things concerning organs -- all these provide a picture of an individual's well being, as in equilibrium state. There is an ideal measure of resting heart beat, for example. Experts will tell you to take your resting heart rate when you're actually just resting and not doing anything, or not excited about something (pleasure), in order to get the accurate picture.

A lot of species reproduce without the aid of pleasure. Sexual pleasure is most pronounced in humans but not necessary in things like plants and fish. Sexual pleasure has lead to a huge proliferation of pornography which in itself does not lead to reproduction. Pleasure seeking seems somewhat divorced from survival in this sense. — Andrew4Handel

This phenomenon deserves its own name. I'll call it the instrumental-intrinsic fallacy - this fallacy is committed when you confuse the means with the ends and is most likely to occur in hedonistic settings for the reason that pleasure/pain is an all-dominating influence.

Sex is pleasurable and the purpose of sex is to perpetuate the species. The end here is species health in terms of numbers. The means is sex. The pleasure of sex is there to make sure we're always motivated to scoodlypoop. It's small wonder then that such an important evolutionary function as sex has so much pleasure associated with it. The insturmental-intrinsinc fallacy is committed when sex is seen as an end in itself and not as the means of the true end, reproduction and the culprit is pleasure, the pleasure of sex.

But morality, which is most pronounced in humans seems to be most concerned with welfare/pleasure — Andrew4Handel

Again, from an evolutionary point of view, all survival-oriented behavior have pleasure associated with them. Morality then is only a means to ensure the species survives.

What bears mentioning though is what I call the conflict of pleasures between the pleasure associated with behavior whose sole beneficiary is the individual and the pleasure that comes with behavior that benefits the tribe. These two are not always in alignment and hence morality as a means to achieve balance of pleasures with the express purpose of optimizing our chances of survival.

There's more that can be said.

Utilitarianism which talks of "the greatest good" seems pleasure based also. — Andrew4Handel

Read above.

I feel like we need to transcend pleasure as a source of motivation or as an end goal. I am not sure why exactly. But facts don't seem to have any relation to pleasure. The evolutionary picture has been seen at odds with facts. Are our beliefs motivated by survival and success or unemotional reason? — Andrew4Handel

If by "transcend pleasure" you mean there's a flaw in the way evolution has shaped our pleasure system and that it needs to be either tweaked or discarded then I'm for it but only if there are good reasons for doing so. In fact we are actually doing this - ensuring freedom and thus reproductive opportunities to good people and imprisoning or executing bad people, in effect removing them from the gene pool. It appears that we're thick in the midst of a human breeding program (and we don't know it).

Personally I don't know what to pursue. Should I pursue pleasure or some other kind of state of enlightenment? — Andrew4Handel

As I said, pleasure is just there to inform you that what you find pleasurable has some value to survival either at the individual level or for the tribe as a whole. If you wish to "transcend pleasure" then I regard that as a positive development for the reason that one would have to rise above our evolutionary programming, programming that has, without your consent and involvement, forced you to have preferences, likes and dislikes. In essence then to decide to go against pleasure is, at the very least, a declaration of freedom.

I think there are facts such as 2 + 2 = 4 that do not rely on our emotional response to them. — Andrew4Handel

Mathematical ‘facts’ rely on our emotional response to them in application. ‘Two friends plus two friends equals four friends’ has a different qualitative value than ‘two strangers plus two strangers equals four strangers’, for instance.

I agree that pleasure is motivational but it seems not to value facts.

That said I think pain is good indicator of something being wrong (whatever wrong means) I have focused on pleasure here but ironically pain seems to be a more powerful informant. — Andrew4Handel

Pain is an indicator that more effort/attention is required than predicted. How ‘bad’ or ‘wrong’ this is depends on a perceived capacity to make the necessary adjustments.

Here are some things Ayn Rand said on this topic:

"The physical sensation of pleasure is a signal indicating that the organism is pursuing the right course of action"

"The achievements of his own happiness is mans highest moral purpose."

(Ayn Rand seemed to think that is was immoral not pursue personal pleasure and that somehow this would have a trickle down effect and inadvertently benefit others. However her detractors would claim altruism has a more positive effect in that helping others will benefit you in the long run)

Your picture seems to be saying we are being coerced by evolutionary forces.

I think the problem with evolutionary explanations is that they are often not complete. For example having legs is beneficial for survival but that doesn't tell us how they came about. Pleasure may encourage survival but that doesn't give it a causal explanation.

I feel like the experience of pleasure includes a value judgment about the sensation itself regardless of what causes it. But unlike Ayn Rand I don't think that pleasure indicates somethings rightness.

I don't think pursuing pleasure is simply an indication of somethings survival value (see food and obesity/alcohol drugs etc) Resolving my own initial question I feel that the sensation of pleasure is a good. Out all things that exist I would class pleasure as a good phenomena (intrinsically valuable) and pain as a negative phenomena (undesirable.) They might mislead us or help us but I think the basic psychic response is dichotomous (except maybe for sado-masochists).

Pain is an indicator that more effort/attention is required than predicted. How ‘bad’ or ‘wrong’ this is depends on a perceived capacity to make the necessary adjustments. — Possibility

Informative pain is like the pain of a broken leg which tells you tissue is damaged and forces you to take weight off the injured limb. In a way this kind of pain makes us want to turn it into pleasure. Reducing pain can cause pleasure like the sense of relief I feel when nausea goes a way.

But pleasure only seems to inform us that we are in a state of pleasure as opposed to telling us if our body is in good health or that we are taking the right course of action. In this sense pleasure seems hedonistic being pursued simply for itself not its instrumentality.

Your picture seems to be saying we are being coerced by evolutionary forces. — Andrew4Handel

In a sense, yes. I believe, and I'm not straying off the beaten track in this, evolution is all about survival and to ensure this it caused the development of a pleasure-pain system that's tuned to ensure our survival as long as possible and also to guarantee that we engage in the procreative act as much as possible.

sado-masochists — Andrew4Handel

The masochist is sometimes mentioned to counter the claim that pleasure is what drives; after all the masochist wants to be in pain rather than experience pleasure but the catch is that the masochist derives pleasure from what is painful to us. In other words, even the masochist is in pursuit of pleasure albeit in an unconventional way.

If anything masochism proves that pleasure can work in weird ways and can make us do almost anything. What if pleasure were associated with death? I'm almost certain that that would be a veritable extinction level event for humanity. Considering the power of pleasure then it makes complete sense that evolution would enlist its aid in the game of survival.

I don't know what religious/esoteric people think about pleasure.

I grew up in a fundamentalist cult situation and they often referred to a lot of basic pleasures as "Worldly pleasures" manmade pleasures like television and concerts counted as this. However a lot of these groups do not seem to have a problem with the pleasure derived from food and in some cases alcohol.

However non materialist philosophies might have a transcendent role for pleasure.

You can probably distinguish between different pleasures such as pleasure from music, lust, schaden freude and masochism. Utilitarian's ended up going down this route in order to have a difference between base pleasures and higher pleasures. But then this adds a value judgement on top of the initial judgement that something is a pleasure.

Informative pain is like the pain of a broken leg which tells you tissue is damaged and forces you to take weight off the injured limb. In a way this kind of pain makes us want to turn it into pleasure. Reducing pain can cause pleasure like the sense of relief I feel when nausea goes a way. — Andrew4Handel

Only because the limited allocation of effort and attention in the body in that moment is more efficiently and effectively applied to repairing the damaged tissue. Not because ‘pain’ itself is telling you this or forcing you to do anything - that’s just how we interpret it, because it’s simpler (ie. more efficient) to conceptualise it as a binary relational structure: pleasure vs pain. But it’s more complex than that. Pain information is a part of our interoceptive network, and its relation to pleasure is neither binary nor linear. It is sensory feedback that enables us to evaluate the accuracy and efficiency of our applied predictions.

But pleasure only seems to inform us that we are in a state of pleasure as opposed to telling us if our body is in good health or that we are taking the right course of action. In this sense pleasure seems hedonistic being pursued simply for itself not its instrumentality. — Andrew4Handel

Pleasure is a prediction that the overall experience is informative in a highly efficient way - that our limited allocation of effort and attention in the next moment would yield more than its fair share of potential information: including pain information. The more potential information we have available in the system, the greater our capacity. So pleasure is an overall prediction of value/potential in the system - including the potential for pain. Pursuing pleasure simply for itself can result in ignoring the temporal or spatial aspects of experience that distinguish between immediate, localised pleasure/pain and long-term, overall capacity/limitations.

Avoiding the potential for pain at all cost can result in ignorance of the long-term or overall benefits of increasing awareness, connection and collaboration with the limits of our capacity. We learn that we can tolerate a certain amount of pain in an experience that we understand to be pleasurable overall. We can also endure pain for a time or repetitively in an activity that we understand to increase our potential/value long term in other areas. Understanding the complexity of this relation between pleasure and pain - particularly the dimensional shift in information between potential/predictive and actual/sensory - is a key to understanding consciousness itself.

I think there are facts such as 2 + 2 = 4 that do not rely on our emotional response to them. — Andrew4Handel

We still have an emotion - it is just a neutral one.

Now if 2+ 2 = 4 , was pleasurable - that would be the life! :smile:

"Nature has placed mankind under the governance of two sovereign masters, pain and pleasure. It is for them alone to point out what we ought to do as well as to determine what we shall do."
Jeremy Bentham 1789

I don't know what religious/esoteric people think about pleasure.

I grew up in a fundamentalist cult situation and they often referred to a lot of basic pleasures as "Worldly pleasures" manmade pleasures like television and concerts counted as this. However a lot of these groups do not seem to have a problem with the pleasure derived from food and in some cases alcohol.

However non materialist philosophies might have a transcendent role for pleasure.

You can probably distinguish between different pleasures such as pleasure from music, lust, schaden freude and masochism. Utilitarian's ended up going down this route in order to have a difference between base pleasures and higher pleasures. But then this adds a value judgement on top of the initial judgement that something is a pleasure. — Andrew4Handel

It appears that when you try and fix utilitarianism by making a distinction between higher and lower pleasures you're infact saying pleasure isn't the be all and end all of life in general and of morality in particular. After all, in terms of pure pleasure the "lower" pleasures are far more intense and satisfying than "higher" pleasures.