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.

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.

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?

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!

"Relations determine value."
Care to elaborate? I read that as: things can't have value without a comparison. — ISeeIDoIAm

No, not that. More that values are relational. Slugs value lettuce, gardeners negatively value slugs and positively value slug killers, crows value carrion, philosophers value reason, cats value cardboard boxes, crack-heads value crack.

Thus though people say 'chocolate has value', and behave in ways that confirm it, it is understood, but sometimes forgotten, that the value is not a property of chocolate in its own right, but of people's relation to chocolate, that they value it.

Good question. If you value something only for the happiness you derive from it, then that's a hedonistic value. No other value either exists or counts. That's as far as I could get. — TheMadFool

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.

Perhaps I need to spell out the causality of motivation here because people tend to get confused.

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.

And are there other acts that do not concern the realisation of images? Of course there are. But that is not important here. What is important is that the result of an action cannot be the cause of it.

Phaedr. Listen. You know how matters stand with me; and how, as I conceive, this affair may be arranged for the advantage of both of us. And I maintain that I ought not to fail in my suit, because I am not your lover: for lovers repent of the kindnesses which they have shown when their passion ceases, but to the non-lovers who are free and not under any compulsion, no time of repentance ever comes; for they confer their benefits according to the measure of their ability, in the way which is most conducive to their own interest. Then again, lovers consider how by reason of their love they have neglected their own concerns and rendered service to others: and when to these benefits conferred they add on the troubles which they have endured, they think that they have long ago made to the beloved a very ample return. But the non-lover has no such tormenting recollections; he has never neglected his affairs or quarrelled with his relations; he has no troubles to add up or excuse to invent; and being well rid of all these evils, why should he not freely do what will gratify the beloved?

http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/phaedrus.html

What you are disregarding is that Mrs. un is deriving satisfaction from making YOU a cup of tea. — Frank Apisa

No, I'm not disregarding it, but I am denying that the satisfaction she gets is the motive she has. In fact the satisfaction she gets is dependent on it not being done for herself, but for me. But what you are disregarding is everything I have written, and in particular that what you are claiming is not even wrong, merely vacuous.

If knowledge determines truth ...? — Shawn

It doesn't. It is well known that there are known unknowns the truth of which is already fixed, but as yet undiscovered. Being (existence) determines truth.

... how is value determined? — Shawn

Relations determine value.

Firstly, neither you nor anyone else has fulfilled my request to present a non-hedonistic value. I tried but every value I could think of couldn't escape the clutches of hedonism and so my request. — TheMadFool

What makes a value hedonistic? My own understanding of hedonism is that it is individualist. I am always and only concerned with my own happiness, so by this understanding, I would only fulfil your request if it made me happy - such as by making me feel smug. This is what the majority of posters seem to be saying, that I literally cannot fulfil your request unless it makes me happy.

What this seems to imply is that there is no significant difference between the man who lays down his life for his friends, and the man who lays down his life for his fix. Both are hedonists. And the result of this is that every act is hedonistic every motive is hedonistic and nothing is not hedonistic. The term has lost all meaning.

But Mrs un has made me a cup of tea. And this is not the same as making herself a cup of tea. Some acts are oriented to oneself, and some acts are oriented towards others, and this is fairly typical of any social species. Mrs un makes herself a cup because she wants one: and she makes me a cup because I want one. I think the different orientation is significant, but I don't think it matters too much what terms you use, as long as your understanding can take account of the distinction. Self- centred and other-centred will do, or hedonistic and altruistic if you like, or some other terms of your choice.

"why does a man sacrifice his own interests for others?" — TheMadFool

Allow me to turn it around. It is completely normal in nature for a mother to sacrifice for her child. There is a genetic argument as to why this happens, but we are talking about a person acting intentionally not a gene operating without awareness.

So why do you even find it strange or problematic that people are unselfish? What is it about the limit of the epidermis that forbids, or rather, ought to forbid one's concern to reach beyond to another?

the winner is invariably the hedonistic value. I consider this to be ample evidence that hedonism is the ultimate overarching paradigm for any and all values. — TheMadFool

So the man who lays down his life for his friends is a hedonist?

That whatever happened was regretted speaks in favor of the existence of non-hedonistic value but that a regrettable event occured is telling, no? — TheMadFool

Can a person do something that does not bring him/herself what he or she wants and desires? — Frank Apisa

The cliched scenario is the man who throws himself on top of a hand grenade in the trench to save his fellows. It happens that someone will sacrifice his life for his friends, and the price of calling this hedonic, or doing what he wants and desires is a radical change of language and inability to account for moral motivation at all. But I want to emphasise the conflict. I want to eat, but I don't want to get fat; I want to save my friends, but I don't want to die; I want to be a philosopher, but I don't want to think too hard. Sometimes one takes the pain for the gain, and sometimes one does not make a calculation at all, and sometimes one indulges and pays for it. think it is a mistake to say that these things are all the same - all just 'doing what one wants'.

I really think there is no depth of depravity to which the man will not descend.

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/03/trump-blames-hospitals-for-coronavirus-mask-shortages.html

So, hedonism is true but not in the sense that all value is attached to happiness but actually that happiness (pleasure & pain) override everything, including non-hedonistic values. — TheMadFool

I'm not sure I understand, but perhaps I can bring things down, or up, to earth and see what you think.

From my happy position of suffering no more than the usual aches of old-age, I might well claim that I would never betray my lover.

But when Big Brother takes me to room 101 and tortures me, in the moment my will breaks, and perhaps eventually everyone's will breaks under torture.

And then when I have been freed, my shame and regret at my betrayal tortures me for the rest of my life.

It seems to me that one's values are not fixed and independent of time. That desire is itself a product, or even the source of time, psychologically. That is, to desire is to form an image of what is-not and try to become that. I am being tortured, and I form the image of not being tortured, and that image is the desire and the movement of my will. And thus there is a conflict between what is and the image of what might be. And then there is another conflict between the image I have in room 101 and the image I have after being freed. - I desire then not to be the one who betrayed.

This seems a more useful way to think about things, that in a sense the conflict is always between the present that relates to the hedonic, and the future self that relates to the non-hedonic. One tends to betray one's future self. as the glutton betrays his future health and happiness for the immediate pleasure of eating.

So get busy and paste the OPs in you idlers. What d'you think we don't pay you for?

And for your mathematical intuition's education... https://www.forbes.com/sites/alexknapp/2011/11/17/the-seduction-of-the-exponential-curve/#7dd1c5ff2480

Did someone say mindless? This is what leaderless looks like. It looks like a mindlessly spreading virus.

https://www.commondreams.org/news/2020/03/27/cell-phone-tracking-analysis-shows-where-florida-springbreakers-and-new-yorkers?fbclid=IwAR3yEj38_9LF_gOiVilEoqKNOL46sPwkTJ5F9DWcOOY1aLYPbd176tRw61c

Frikkin banana republic. — StreetlightX

The non-latitudist term is "failed state".

It's not a club with membership rules, subs or obligations.

If you're happy and you know it clap your hands.

You don't have to, clapping your hands doesn't make you happy, and being happy doesn't make you clap your hands. Lot's of people just want to show their appreciation.

It is naïve to think that facts about reality can be discerned without observation, though observations may be indirect rather than direct. — A Seagull

A rather indirect observation, if I may say so. But the philosophy of the gaps will not do at all, because it is the philosophy of pragmatism that defines what is an observation and what is a gap. "Naive" is a dangerous word in this context, that may come to haunt you.

This is my pragmatic philosophy that I do because my experience has gaps ...

When I think about all the sad and horrible things in the world, knowing I can't do anything about it except feel sad, I feel a sense of joy. It's hard to explain, — Wheatley

It is the privilege of life to be responsive. I would not want to be happy at the death of a parent, or indifferent. Loss is the corollary of value.

There are two people in this conversation, Hanover. What number and what percentage of them are right? — Baden

You are dehumanising a number of contributors there good buddy. Moderator elitism of the most blatant sort.

Much confusion can be avoided by looking at what sort of thing a singularity is, followed by what sort of singularity one wishes to talk about.

https://www.einstein-online.info/en/spotlight/singularities/

It can be readily seen here that it is one thing to say that the start of time or the beginning of the universe was a singularity, and quite another to say that it was caused by a singularity. The latter is somewhat incoherent, as if one were to say the universe was caused by a corner.

That is all that is required. — A Seagull

A Pragmatist Seagull. How effectively are you interacting with the world? Are you sure you're not missing something? If it is all we've got, then we'll have to make the best of it, but one can certainly wish one could tell the oasis from the mirage without a five mile walk and a mouthful of sand.

People can be wrong when it comes to their experiences — Tempest Beachy

One can be wrong, but one relies on experience to know this.

https://web.maths.unsw.edu.au/~jim/worst.html

he's much more subtle. — Galuchat

He's the undisputed world heavyweight champion of subtlety .

Emergency powers are never rescinded. — Galuchat

No one will ever be allowed out of the house again.

It's very much like the confusion of safety standards with 'red tape'.

Speaking of Darwin, the award goes to...

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/mar/24/liberty-university-reopens-despite-coronavirus-closure-calls-jerry-falwell-jr?CMP=share_btn_fb&fbclid=IwAR2Tr7pQIYVN5qq79Uk8jdRdIB3EVBBCLAwYypw8MLoF9qDPHW_ex4Sbj-M

What was that about Jesus, again?

Yeah everybody dies, what's the fuss? Everybody's intelligence is limited, why go on about leaders? Shout it from the rooftops, I'm an uncaring genius ... I'm an uncaring genius.

I don't normally bother, but really, what a turnip! His fantasies have become completely irrelevant, as the virus ignores him and everyone else responds to the virus.

Who profits? — Galuchat

I don't know, who profits?

Wait - is it undertakers?

Brown wants international organizations like the WHO and the UN to be given executive powers that would supersede national sovereignty as part of a new system overseen by world leaders and health experts.

Even as the virus was raging through China, the World Health Organization repeatedly insisted that countries should not impose any border controls.

He wants to give more powers to the body of experts that got it so very wrong for so very long.

The senile old fart doesn't get my vote.

There is a God.

https://www.buzzfeed.com/alexwickham/boris-johnson-positive-coronavirus?origin=shp&ref=hpsplash

I think everyone is responsible. We cannot expect less developed countries to deal with this like other countries (where poverty is a far more serious issue). — I like sushi

Absolutely. But of course the poorest will be hit hardest and fastest and are the most vulnerable to economic disruption. But this is not a reason to continue with the exploitative economy we had until now. UBI and nationalisation of essential assets here now because we can and it it is the least disruptive policy, and spread to other places asap. Vote unenlightened!

If people don’t have money they can’t grow/buy food. They starve to death or lose their homes/education. — I like sushi

It needs addressing more closely I feel. — I like sushi

Let's look then.

The economy as fully functional and without lockdown results in 9 million deaths from starvation per year. It's a question as to whether the economy not functioning would be worse or better. The story we tell ourselves is that our wealth trickles down to these poor and starving people. And if the trickle stops, more will starve. I'm questioning that.

I was referring to the economic fallout due to lockdowns potentially killing millions more than the virus itself. — I like sushi

How would that happen? I can see authorities wanting poor folk to sit home and starve. I can see how us not buying so many pairs of jeans can put poor people out of work, and perhaps the resulting unrest might kill people. I can't see it being comparable numbers though. I think the dependencies are nearly all in the other direction "I can't live without my arabica coffee".

somewhere like Brasil, Indonesia, Philippines or Nigeria where the gap between rich and poor (per person) is a gaping chasm in comparison. — I like sushi

Indeed. As usual, it is advantageous to be in a rich country where folks can afford to find mass graves distasteful. In such places as those, it's going to be, get it, recover or die without medical assistance, for most people.

By the by, it seems to me that it would make good sense while the economy is in shut down and the society in lock down, that interest and rent for everything should also be suspended.

where the real pain is being felt, and that is by those who can't pay their rent. — Hanover

I think, and my son, who has the virus tells me, that the real real pain is being felt by those who struggle to breathe. But fuck you too.