Poll: Are you hedonistic?
Poll Options
View poll results: Are you hedonistic?
Yes
45 48%
No
49 52%
Voters: 94.
Page 1 of 2
#1
My friend called me a hedonist today (probably for a variety of reasons. Not really relevant here).

Anyway, it got me thinking: who can honestly say they are not hedonistic? I.e. that pleasure was the ultimate goal in life.

I would interested to see who claims they are not, and for what reasons.


EDIT: Apologies if I have grossly misunderstood the premise of hedonism; I just got back from the pub recently where the conservation took place, and I have just thrown it out there
Last edited by fender_696 at Mar 17, 2011,
#5
Quote by Ninja Vampirate
I clicked no. But your definition of hedonism is wrong.

I thought hedonism was, fundamentally, that pleasure was the ultimate goal in life.

I could be wrong. I've had a few pints
#7
Hedon! Hedon! Hedon! Hedon! Your children wild!

And no, I am not a hedonist. If I remember my philosophy properly, Hedonism denies the validity of all purposes with the exception of pleasure. Something which I cannot agree with, just as a principle.
🙈 🙉 🙊
#9
Quote by entity0009
Hedon! Hedon! Hedon! Hedon! Your children wild!

And no, I am not a hedonist. If I remember my philosophy properly, Hedonism denies the validity of all purposes with the exception of pleasure. Something which I cannot agree with, just as a principle.
But how does one gauge pleasure?

Helping someone out derives pleasure, does it not? Hence, you are fulfilling your own perception of pleasure.

I.e. unless you are putting yourself through immense displeasure for something you don't believe in, aren't you living an hedonistic life?
#10
Quote by fender_696
I thought hedonism was, fundamentally, that pleasure was the ultimate goal in life.

I could be wrong. I've had a few pints


Well, yes, that's pretty much it... but that's not what you said in the OP.
#11
Pleasure is feeling good.
Feeling good is a song.
The song is music.
Music is life.

Question solved!
Quote by Moggan13



FUCK YEAH GHERKIN PALS!!



Yeah, I use a Squier Strat.
#12
Quote by fender_696
But how does one gauge pleasure?

Helping someone out derives pleasure, does it not? Hence, you are fulfilling your own perception of pleasure.

I.e. unless you are putting yourself through immense displeasure for something you don't believe in, aren't you living an hedonistic life?

I think hedonism gravitates more towards material pleasure than to moral pleasure in this case: Food, drink, sex.

It's a rather bleak view though, to think that the only reason people help others is to feel pleasure for themself.
🙈 🙉 🙊
#13
Related topic: Picture of Dorian Gray was a reeeeeally good book.
“Just to sum up: I would do various things very quickly.” - Donald Trump
#14
Quote by entity0009
I think hedonism gravitates more towards material pleasure than to moral pleasure in this case: Food, drink, sex.

It's a rather bleak view though, to think that the only reason people help others is to feel pleasure for themself.
I understand what you're saying but, ultimately, people tend to live lives with guidelines and, dare I say, morals that they create themselves.

Thereby deriving pleasure from fulfilling these set of morals. This doesn't necessarily mean living selfishly (e.g. a selfish git who just looks after himself), but living in a way that makes you satisfied and happy; i.e. pleasurable.

I think I get the concept of hedonism - a one-man crusade indulging in pleasurable things, but isn't everyone doing that, in their own way?


EDIT: ^ Unless you're joking (it's hard to know in text form), The Picture Of Dorian Gray was more narcissistic than hedonistic.

Again, apologies if you were joking
Last edited by fender_696 at Mar 17, 2011,
#16
Quote by entity0009
I think hedonism gravitates more towards material pleasure than to moral pleasure in this case: Food, drink, sex.

It's a rather bleak view though, to think that the only reason people help others is to feel pleasure for themself.



Feeling bad if we don't and good if we do is the only reason anyone helps anyone else isn't it?

Nobody indifferent helps out, so it's essentially all for personal gain.

Quote by Karl Pilkington
Jellyfish are 97% water or something, so how much are they doing? Just give them another 3% and make them water. It's more useful."
#17
No, but Epicurus is one of my favorite philosophers and he was a moderate hedonist
Quote by beadhangingOne
What happened to Snake?

Snake?

Snake?

SNAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAKE?!


Quote by TunerAddict
you can take my mouse and keyboard from my cold, slightly orange from cheetos, dead fingers


Quote by Baby Joel
Isis is amazing
#18
Quote by fender_696
But how does one gauge pleasure?

Helping someone out derives pleasure, does it not? Hence, you are fulfilling your own perception of pleasure.

I.e. unless you are putting yourself through immense displeasure for something you don't believe in, aren't you living an hedonistic life?

if one cannot define pleasure then how can one decide they are hedonistic or not?

The whole thing revolves around the sefishness principal, if you believe all action produce some form of pleasure for us then chances are you feel you are a hedonist. If you feel otherwise then you'd probably say ur not. Thats how i noticed it when i took philosophy.
Gotta keep my eyes from the circling skies...
tounge tied and twisted just an earth bound misfit...

>CRYPTIC METAPHOR<


Quote by ilikepirates
ilikeyou.

not hated
#19
The problem with hedonism is that in the pursuit of a more pleasant life, people end up sacrificing other people's wellbeing and happiness to get what they want. I think that a true utopian society is one where every human endeavour is executed for the general betterment and enjoyment of all the people, not just those who can afford it.
You're using UG classic, congratulations.
You should be using UG classic.




E-Married to Guitar0Player

http://the llama forum because its gone forever which sucks and I hate it.
#20
I'm not sure I'd agree with this idea that acting at heart in self-interest is the same as pursuing pleasure.

Satisfaction of desires or preventing negative feelings =/= pleasure (as I would understand it, anyway)
#21
Quote by Gibson_SG_uzr55
No, but Epicurus is one of my favorite philosophers and he was a moderate hedonist

Wasn't he more minimisation of negative feeling rather than maximisation of positive?
#22
Epicurius may or may not be considered a hedonist, depending on your definition of pleasure. He defined it as tranquility and lack of suffering, which is not what I consider hedonism, as it's commonly known. Hedonism is more the deliberate pursuit of absolute pleasure.

Relevant:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_hedonism
Quote by blackflag49
Condoms, for all the copious amounts of pussy with which you will be inevitably bombarded from this moment onward.


Last edited by bingeandletgo at Mar 17, 2011,
#23
Quote by MadClownDisease
Wasn't he more minimisation of negative feeling rather than maximisation of positive?

I guess so, that's why I said moderate lol. A lot of people mistake Epicureanism with gluttony and laziness and promiscuity the like, even though Epicurus said to eat healthy and abstain from sex.

^And what are you even talking about?
Quote by beadhangingOne
What happened to Snake?

Snake?

Snake?

SNAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAKE?!


Quote by TunerAddict
you can take my mouse and keyboard from my cold, slightly orange from cheetos, dead fingers


Quote by Baby Joel
Isis is amazing
#25
pleasure=/=happiness.

For example, some people put knowledge or peace of mind over pleasure, because those things make them happy or more content, but for different reasons than pleasure. But I suppose it depends on how you define pleasure.

I mean, I get happy when I have sex, and I get happy when I'm learning about epistemology, but there definitely isn't the same mechanism happening inside of mt body.

Also, there's many schools of thought that teach the idea of displeasure acceptance and tolerance, and hold it higher than pleasure (stoicism, for one)
#26
Quote by fender_696

EDIT: ^ Unless you're joking (it's hard to know in text form), The Picture Of Dorian Gray was more narcissistic than hedonistic.

Again, apologies if you were joking


Lord Henry was hedonistic and exposed Dorian to such things. Which led to his narcissism. So Dorian was influenced by Henry's narcissism, if I remember the book correctly.

On the topic of Epicurus, to him the ultimate goal in life is pleasure, which brings happiness for all. We can free ourselves from the pain of any desire by fulfilling that desire. However, since immediate pleasure can result in pain and suffering, we must consider the consequences before indulging in pleasurable activities. So was almost reasonable, realizing that at the surface something that can be pleasureable can also bring you pain.
“Just to sum up: I would do various things very quickly.” - Donald Trump
#27
Quote by bass-boy-garith
Don't worry, the pseudo-intellectuals will tell you the definition of hedonism, how you can and cannot be hedonistic, what hedonism isn't, what kind of people hedonists are, why going to the pub is stupid, which way to lean when you fart, and why you and your friend and everyone else on this forum are morons. A 3rd of them will read wiki pages, a 3rd will brag about being in their 2nd year of uni, which means they are THE only source of real information for the topic at hand, and the rest will argue and call each other trolls.

Oh, and a few will criticize my grammar, which means everything I just wrote is meaningless. 1 or 2 will also make a smart ass remark to this as well.


i don't know why i feel so dry
#28
Quote by bass-boy-garith
Don't worry, the pseudo-intellectuals will tell you the definition of hedonism, how you can and cannot be hedonistic, what hedonism isn't, what kind of people hedonists are, why going to the pub is stupid, which way to lean when you fart, and why you and your friend and everyone else on this forum are morons. A 3rd of them will read wiki pages, a 3rd will brag about being in their 2nd year of uni, which means they are THE only source of real information for the topic at hand, and the rest will argue and call each other trolls.

Oh, and a few will criticize my grammar, which means everything I just wrote is meaningless. 1 or 2 will also make a smart ass remark to this as well.

Hedonism as a doctrine, notice the heavy emphasis, is pretty much pleasure as an ultimate end. If you mean general hedonism, the hedonism in enjoying a few pints, then that's something different. In fact it's pretentious of you to decry against those who will pose hedonism as a doctrine despite it actually being posed as one by some.
#29
Quote by goest
Who else had to look up hedonism?
+1

Voted no.
“Science cannot solve the ultimate mystery of nature. And that is because, in the last analysis, we ourselves are part of nature and therefore part of the mystery that we are trying to solve.”


-Max Planck

☮∞☯♥
#30
Hedonism- material pleasure is the only thing that is inherently good.

This has lead to a perspective known as "hedonistic egoism" which states that all humans act in a way that they believe will lead to material pleasure.

Personally, I believe in psychological egoism-- that all humans act in a way that they believe will lead to pleasure.

The difference being that PE opens up the gate to actions that seem to defy material pleasure/pain, such as diving on a grenade.

PE also allows Mill's understanding of Act Utillitarianism (that whether an act is morally right, wrong, optional, or obligatory is based upon maximizing the resultant pleasure. It's a form of consequentialism), that there are "higher pleasures" and they are more intrinsically valuable than the lower pleasures, to exist. However, Mill has an objective definition of higher pleasures, such as opera, reading philosophy, learning, etc.

EDIT: hedonism defines the ultimate goal as maximizing pleasure and minimizing pain. As I understand it, minimizing pain is a form of maximizing pleasure.
Last edited by trueamerican at Mar 18, 2011,
#31
If hedonism is referring to the shit that Epicurus wrote about, then I am most certainly a hedonist. I'm damn sure that most people seek pleasure (for Epicurus this basically means the absence of pain) as a matter of principle.

But, really, Epicurus was a bit of a moron, since he defined pleasure as the absence of pain. Pretty shit definition of pleasure, imo. So in the sense of hedonism being a lifestyle that only concerns itself with the seeking out of things that feel good, I am not a hedonist.

This is why arguing semantics is pedantic. Since pleasure is (usually) the defining feature of hedonism, we have to define pleasure itself. How many philosophers have defined pleasure? A fuckton, that's how many. So everyone who has read even a little philosophy will sit here and debate the very definition of hedonism.

/rant

Quote by Pat_s1t
I remember Das_Skittles made me rage hard.

Quote by WCPhils
I can't stand Das_Skittles everything he says makes me mad.

Quote by due 07
Skittles is the shit you cuntles. Slob on his knob.

My Band Youtube Channel Last.fm
Last edited by Das_Skittles at Mar 18, 2011,
#32
^ no. Hedonism has a specific definition. Material pleasure and avoidance of pain. Psychological egoism, act utilitarianism, higher pleasures, base pleasures, etc. is where definition of pleasure comes in.
#33
Quote by trueamerican
^ no. Hedonism has a specific definition. Material pleasure and avoidance of pain. Psychological egoism, act utilitarianism, higher pleasures, base pleasures, etc. is where definition of pleasure comes in.


It doesn't matter that the concepts that you listed aren't a part of hedonism. The fact that they are associated with what pleasure is means that they will affect the meaning of hedonism, since hedonism is defined by pleasure. If pleasure changes, hedonism changes.

It's nearly impossible to discuss a philosophy without talking about other philosophies, so I'm failing to understand why you would attempt to exclude a number of tangential ideas. They add depth to the discussion.

By the way, I'm well aware that I'm being obstinate. It's because I'm fairly interested as to where this thread will go (if people post intelligently, anyway), not because I want to stonewall your point. Also, the bold part of the quoted post is a textbook example of a pedantic statement.

Quote by Pat_s1t
I remember Das_Skittles made me rage hard.

Quote by WCPhils
I can't stand Das_Skittles everything he says makes me mad.

Quote by due 07
Skittles is the shit you cuntles. Slob on his knob.

My Band Youtube Channel Last.fm
#34
Material pleasure is a specific definition. You're the one being pedantic. So for you, material/physical pleasure=sense gratification. Gratification of touch, sight, hearing, taste, and smell. Hearing good music, sex, watching a good movie, eating good food, smelling good food. Those are materia/physical pleasures.

And you have it backwards. They don't affect the meaning of hedonism, but hedonism can affect their meaning. But it doesn't have to.
#36
Voted no.

Everyone seeks pleasure and wants to avoids suffering, but there's a big difference in doing it as a background thing and devoting your life to it.

There's a time for hedonism, and it's called College. Eventually as you get older and more responsible you stop going to foam parties.
#38
I said yes because I was looking at it w/ Mill's objections. Like that humans are capable of more than food/sex, etc. (look up doctrine worthy of swine). So, I was looking more at Utilitarianism, which yes I'd say I lean more toward than Deontology.

Basically, what I've gathered in my phil classes is this. If morality is something other than making the world a better place, then what is it based on? Pleasure is a good measure of this, that an act is right if it brings about the most pleasure (thus making the world a better place). But, Kant and Deontologists have a hard time justifying their views because if morality is not meant to make the world a better place, then what would it be about?

Might wanna take this to the phil/religion thread...I'll be on my way...
58-32 NFL Thread Pick Em.
#39
Quote by L2112Lif


Are you... Hedonism Bot?

I was going to post that.
ERROR 0x45: Signature not found
#40
But act utilitarianism has many inherent flaws.... It's really impossible to gauge which possible actions will give the most possible please, an action is morally WRONG if it didn't give the most pleasure. It requires pure self-sacrifice, and an action can't be moral based on the consequences. That can lead to all sorts of moral issues, such as a hitman who donates his proceeds to charity, a Bernie Madoff type who steals but then gives that money to charity. And there are others.
Page 1 of 2