Hedonism or This and that: Discourse on the Method of Rightly Conducting your Reason and Seeking Truth in the Sciences

Whether you call the absent absolute pleasure, or power, or god, or thing, or omniscience makes little difference, except that it exposes your ideals and therefore your motives, your character = your psychology.

To exist is to feel this existence as a need, which increases or decreases according to your tolerance and the amount of energies accessible to you.
What is for one man unendurable, is comfortable for another.
Strength = endurance, a measure of weakness. 
What for one man is not worth living for, for another is the eternal truth of life - idealism.
What one man would rather die than surrender to, is for another worth enduring just to survive - depravity.
What for one man is shallow and animalistic, is for another the secret of life - nobility.

Nobody considers pain good or bad, except imbeciles, who think in those terms, and/or dysfunctional, self-hating, sexually deformed, manimals.
The fact that, for some, pleasure and pain coexist, points to their common ground in need.

Need, leading to suffering/pain, is the experience of existing - the ordering/becoming feeling the interactivity as stress, which either increases to a level where it becomes conscious, then pressing (pain), or diminishes to a level where it is not conscious (comfort).

Every organism that is not self-destructive - and only man can be that - seeks self-maintenance, which it feels as a reduction of need - ergo pleasure.

A hedonist makes of pleasure his goal, and so self-maintenance is not a factor he cares about, neither are the consequences - not unless he is also a hypocrite.
Fucking a fat cow would be, for him, the same as fucking a pretty girl, since reproduction, or the source of his pleasure does not matter - only the pleasure itself.
If other things factor in then he is a hypocrite, or a simpleton, who prefers to not ruin his pleasure by thinking of what it is and why he feels it.
If anything but pleasure factors into his judgments, such as principles, long term consequences, shame, pride, then he is not a hedonist, nor is pleasure his end.

Growth is felt as pleasure because it is the release of accumulated energies - like a slow orgasm - accumulated due to needs seeking self-maintenance and the satiation of needs which is felt as a decrease (pleasure).
Growth increases need, because no the organism needs more energies to remain comfortable.

Saying power is the end because power is the end, is not only circular, it is the product of insecurity, a reluctance to accept that power is an end BECAUSE you are powerless; knowledge is an end BECAUSE you are ignorant; strength is an end BECAUSE you are weak; pleasure is an end BECAUSE you are in need.

Therefore the end is never attained, as it is never absolute. It is approachable, but not attainable - never perfect, never final, never complete.
You are always striving towards it, and whether you are conscious of it, or not, does not make your need go away.
Consciousness evolved TO aid the organism in gratifying its needs - it did not evolve for the organism to enjoy its life.
Nature cares not for the individual's joy.

A plant has no consciousness of its becoming, not on a human level, and still it needs.
Does it feel pleasure?
Probably not, because it has no central nervous system to translate this momentary and incomplete satiation into that brain sensation.
If we keep a human in a constant state of bliss, using drugs, is he free of need, stress?
No, he is merely unable to be conscious of it.
Being unconscious of yourself does not make you disappear.  

If asceticism is the endurance of suffering, so as to enjoy a later increase in pleasure, a training of tolerance to endure the stress upon you, then this is not making pleasure your end.
Making pleasure your end excludes all other considerations, since pleasure is the END.

An animal is hedonistic since it makes of it the satisfaction of its need, an immediate concern.
It copulates without knowing that this leads to offspring. It's only care is to please itself..in other words to get rid of this need pressing upon its consciousness.
It does not postpone its gratification; it does not consider the long-term effects; it does not place itself in a state of stress to enjoy things more in the future; it does not care about ideals and shame and principles; it puts pleasure, as the satiation of need, on the forefront.

Otherwise, everyone is a fuckin' hedonist, and you are playing with words.
And everyone is a hedonist, just as everyone is power hungry, and wanting of knowledge, and seeking to remain immortal.

But this is not about how humans project the absent absolute, turning it into an idea(l) to strive towards....but about an objective understanding of life, in relation to the world, and we, as part of nature, feel its reality in us.

Why are we striving towards omniscience?
Why are we striving towards omnipotence?
Why are we striving towards immortality?
Why are we striving towards beauty?
Why are we attracted by order, and health?  

Because we lack these in ourselves, in any complete, absolute, eternal sense.

So why does man strive towards pleasure, when he is a simpleton who does not want to think what this striving is, no more than an animal knows why it is hungry?
Because even if unconscious of the fact, he is in a state of constant need - an ordering that is never absolutely ORDER.
He strives for what he does not have, in a world that is stressing him, and so making him feel this existence as need, that, if left unsatisfied, grows to the unendurable level of suffering/pain.


The positive value of pain, and the absence of absolutes....most commonly called nihilism by those who are true Nihilists:

Need = sensation of existing - as an ordering/becoming, in the entropy, in the fragmenting.
Therefore, it is the sensation of being alive.
Is being alive a positive or a negative?
It depends on how much you love yourself.  
In this sense does Schopenhauer describe pleasure as a negative...as the numbing of the mind to the sensation of existing.

Similarly the absence of universal truths, morals, ideals, is considered by nihilists as a negative, when, in fact, it is this absence that makes life a positive, in that it necessitates a striving, the creativity of human projection, which we can compare to increased options/choices....freedom.

If there were an absolute morality, God, ideals, thing, there would be no room for choice, except as a nonsensical child's game.
If we were not ignorant and weak, what value would knowledge and strength have?
If we were not in the human condition of need then what value would there be in pleasure?

Pain (its potential sources) is avoided BECAUSE it is ubiquitous.
Pleasure (its potential sources) is valuable BECAUSE it is NOT!!!!!!!!!!!

It is BECAUSE there is no Being that Becoming is possible.

Now, you can play with words and simply baptize Becoming Being, or activity as perfection, as many have.  
Those are mind games.

We, as living organisms, manifesting in this world, feel the lack in us.
We project the gratification of this lack as an object/objective, sometimes discovering it in phenomenon, which promises a final satisfaction that never comes - because the lacking feeding on the lacking cannot produce absolute bliss.
We feel this in ourselves, but we dismiss it.

The ephemeral partial gratification, requiring effort, now becomes a universal truth, and the sensation of need, growing to suffering/pain which requires no effort, is dismissed as accidental, or an illusion we can avoid, or as a product of human psychosis.

Entropy = increases whether we like it or not; whether we will it or not; whether we exist or not.

RANDOMNESS  <<<--------complexity-----------------------Linear Time---------------------------<  ORDER

This towards increasing randomness, or complexity, requires no effort, no will, no life...no consciousness of it.


Order = increases only by willing it, with effort, with constant struggle, agon.

>-----Will towards (idea(l), God, Thing, Pleasure, Symmetry/Beauty, Health, Life, One, Being----->>>

The projected idea(l), or object/objective, can be anything - it can be given any name, any symbol (word, number).
This towards order, Becoming, required effort/agon, struggle, stress...and the more towards you reach all the more these increase.
It also evolves consciousness to aid in the towards ordering.
Consciousness is the awareness of this friction, antagonism, resistance.

The friction produced between these conflicting directions is what need/suffering is interpreted as by the conscious mind.
The sensation of fluidity upon a form that is attempting to remain permanent.
No good/bad, no pleasure/pain, no positive/negative outside the conscious mind and its interpretation of this relationship of Becoming to Flux.

Satyr wrote:

A hedonist makes of pleasure his goal, and so self-maintenance is not a factor he cares about, neither are the consequences - not unless he is also a hypocrite.

It is not hypocritical for a hedonist to ensure, maintain, and enhance his pleasure by preserving and enhancing himself. (How else is he going to maximize pleasure?). That's common sense.

You seem to think that a hedonist must be short-sighted to the point of 5 minutes in the future, such that he is incapable of evaluating future consequences (which, obviously, he will do in terms of pleasure and pain).

Quote :

Fucking a fat cow would be, for him, the same as fucking a pretty girl, since reproduction, or the source of his pleasure does not matter - only the pleasure itself.

Rare Genius, do you get the same pleasure from fucking a fat cow as a beautiful woman? Do you get pleasure at all from fucking a fat cow? Your decadence isn't a criticism of hedonism... it's a criticism of YOU.

Quote :

If anything but pleasure factors into his judgments, such as principles, long term consequences, shame, pride, then he is not a hedonist, nor is pleasure his end.

That is straightforwardly false. For a hardcore hedonist, all of his principles, consequences, standards, codes, values... are going to be evaluated in terms of maximizing pleasure. The hardcore hedonist can distinguish between short-term and long-term, as well as between higher and lower pleasures, base or intellectual, as well as holding a host of intermediate values that he ultimately thinks are reducible to pleasure. The hedonist can have whatever principles, dogmas, rules, codes, standards... because they further his maximization of pleasure, in his life. And when they fail to do so, he can adjust them accordingly by learning from experience.

If you want to develop an actual criticism of hedonism, you should at least familiarize yourself with Bentham or Mill... so that you're not swinging at a pinyata that doesn't exist.

Why do males get boners?

Just because.

Wait... satyr is arguing against a strawman?! No.

Why doesn't phonee ever contribute to threads or create her own threads?

Just because.

Mo, according to Lyssa, Satyr is a hedonist.

Satyr wrote:

[...]I say that because I do not see hedonism as an immediate consequence of this cynicism, Satyr's ascetic-epicureanism being an example.

I blame this tangent on Kovacs. He wrote a post about hedonism when the thread had nothing to do with hedonism, and, if a hedonist is someone who thinks that the only 'good' is 'pleasure', then I'm clearly not a hedonist.

Tsk tsk.

Lyssa, is it ok if the title of this thread is changed from "Discourse on the Method..." to "Of the Diverting and Important Scrutiny Which the Curate and the Barber Made in the Library of Our Ingenious Gentleman"?

And can you check if that's taken already...

Satyr, my take on Kovacs is he has no clue what is being discussed.

Kovacs wrote:

It would be overall pleasure and overall pain, rather than the individual looks at the next moment and evaluates options based on immediate results.

Doesn't matter if pain/pleasure is overall or moment-to-moment, as long as it factors as the deciding factor of how you live, that is A hedonism.

Quote :

Pain is unavoidable, some pain.  Pain to achieve pleasure is unavoidable.    Here, taking pain and pleasure in very, very broad senses, pain for example including discomfort, anxiety, confusion, irritation, yearning; pleasure including positive sensations however subtle.   The person who to some degree idealizes pain, or thinks that it is good in itself, may or may not be correct in their self-evaluation.   They may confuse the fact that going through processes that caused pain, brought pleasures - again, please, the full range of pleasures, not simply orgasms and great mouthfuls of food - that could not have been reached otherwise.

Saying that need always persists subconsciously even when pleasures obvious or subtle give the feeling of momentary and only temporary satiation (before another need becomes conscious again) is not idealizing pain, but realizing it. It is statement on the reality of life, not an idealization.

Quote :

The critic of the hedonist often sees the hedonist of having an inferior value system.  Note that this implies an egalitarian view of humanity.

The critic of the critic of the hedonist often sees the crtique of the hedonist as having a narcissist value system. Note that this implies he thinks any rank judgement of superior/inferior, any discrimination of another and calling a spade a spade is supposedly calling for a levelling, is supposedly expressing the wish that all would have the same system. In his mind, rank judgements amount to narcissism and discrediting of the other, and not that one Objectively is evaluating nobler ways of living...
Relativistism and seeing the "good merits" of "all value systems" is the sure sign of a healthy, mature, and secure individual to the critic of the critic of the hedonist.

Quote :

That guy is a hedonist, he chooses those base things that give him gross and short term pleasures.  Such decadence and idiocy.

But that guy's specific hedonism is contingent.   It is tied to that person.  Those are HIS pleasures.

The critic of the critic of the hedonist imagines fictitious arguments of someone denying that.    

Quote :

It is not that that guy would be better off or more interesting wiht another system of thought. That is the range of his pleasures.  They are limited.  He may or may not have a philosophy that matches this.  He may or may not call this hedonism.

Philosophy and deriving value standards is about rigorous objectivity and not pomo relativisms of letting what works for whom as a Definition. Philosophy is about making value judgements, unless you are schizo-smears or one of his drug buddies.

Quote :

The critic who implies or says that hedonism is a poor cognitive system is in a sense implying that he or she would be happier, have a greater pleasure to pain ratio, if he or she was pursuing those pleasures.   I doubt it.  Nor could the hedonist take on another belief system and become more interesting to the critic.   It might evolve that way over time as a disatisfaction with what is happening - likely a recognition of the attendant not hitherto focused on pain - by it is not simply mistaken or poor or could simply be replaced with other ideas in the mind of the hedonist.

It appears the critic of the critic of the hedonist has no idea what was being discussed in this thread.

Quote :

That critic actually has a different set of pleasures and pains, perhaps a broader one, a set that includes the blunt short terms one of the traditional hedonist, but also has a range of subtler more complex ones.   It may not be broader it may simply be different.   Some people cannot enjoy food and sex and so on, but can read and enjoy incredibly boring treatises.  Their range is no greater, it is a different range.

It appears the critic of the critic of the hedonist has no idea what was being discussed in this thread.

It is not a question of a "this" or "that", but pleasure determining taste (Hedonist) or taste determining pleasure (Master).

I think he is bitter about need being fundamental in the human condition, and pleasure, like suffering/pain being a degree of it,  and so he lashes out.
I did learn something.

Mo wrote:

Satyr wrote:

A hedonist makes of pleasure his goal, and so self-maintenance is not a factor he cares about, neither are the consequences - not unless he is also a hypocrite.

It is not hypocritical for a hedonist to ensure, maintain, and enhance his pleasure by preserving and enhancing himself. (How else is he going to maximize pleasure?). That's common sense.

You seem to think that a hedonist must be short-sighted to the point of 5 minutes in the future, such that he is incapable of evaluating future consequences (which, obviously, he will do in terms of pleasure and pain).

A hedonist who thinks in terms of pleasure alone and reduces it all to pleasure cannot make value-judgements on par with reality; his preservation and self-maintenance only and can only exist within a bubble.

Epicurus had a 'Garden'.

Go figure.

Quote :

Quote :

Fucking a fat cow would be, for him, the same as fucking a pretty girl, since reproduction, or the source of his pleasure does not matter - only the pleasure itself.

Rare Genius, do you get the same pleasure from fucking a fat cow as a beautiful woman? Do you get pleasure at all from fucking a fat cow? Your decadence isn't a criticism of hedonism... it's a criticism of YOU.

When pleasure and its sensation is all that counts, it doesn't matter which kind of cow you f---; and that is a criticism of not only the Hedonist, but also of Hedonism as a way of life.

Quote :

Quote :

If anything but pleasure factors into his judgments, such as principles, long term consequences, shame, pride, then he is not a hedonist, nor is pleasure his end.

That is straightforwardly false. For a hardcore hedonist, all of his principles, consequences, standards, codes, values... are going to be evaluated in terms of maximizing pleasure. The hardcore hedonist can distinguish between short-term and long-term, as well as between higher and lower pleasures, base or intellectual, as well as holding a host of intermediate values that he ultimately thinks are reducible to pleasure. The hedonist can have whatever principles, dogmas, rules, codes, standards... because they further his maximization of pleasure, in his life. And when they fail to do so, he can adjust them accordingly by learning from experience.

If you want to develop an actual criticism of hedonism, you should at least familiarize yourself with Bentham or Mill... so that you're not swinging at a pinyata that doesn't exist.

Honour for pleasure's sake, Pride for pleasure's sake, Principle for pleasure's sake defeats the very purpose of evaluating higher/lower kinds of living.

You would have to develop a mature way of understanding what he is saying, instead of indulging in eargasming on your own 'dumb f---'.

You could, but then saying, 'step inside of yourself' makes you look a hypocrite.

Lyssa wrote:

A hedonist who thinks in terms of pleasure alone and reduces it all to pleasure cannot make value-judgements on par with reality; his preservation and self-maintenance only and can only exist within a bubble.

Satyr claimed that self-maintenance is not a factor to a hedonist.
That is obviously false.
(How else is a hedonist going to maximize pleasure?)

Furthermore, the hedonist is OBVIOUSLY making value judgments. Specifically, they reduce all different kinds of value to pleasure. They are reductionists, and monists about value. Hence, their judgements happen to be false, but they are OBVIOUSLY making value-judgments.

Quote :

Honour for pleasure's sake, Pride for pleasure's sake, Principle for pleasure's sake defeats the very purpose of evaluating higher/lower kinds of living.

You can say that it misses what honour and pride actually are. That's perfectly fair, and I'd agree. But you can't say that a hedonist is incapable of distinguishing higher from lower in their own way. Why do you think that Mill said, "Better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a pig satisfied"? ---Why would a hedonist say that?

Quote :

You would have to develop a mature way of understanding what he is saying, instead of indulging in eargasming on your own 'dumb f---'.

You could, but then saying, 'step inside of yourself' makes you look a hypocrite.

You didn’t defend anything he said, and of course you didn’t, because it’s indefensible.

When you do something for pleasure, like watch a movie, or put ketchup on your fries, are you doing it for something other than the pleasure you get from doing so? If not, then I’m not really sure what you’re arguing about. Pleasure is a value and a goal among others.

And, please, don’t tell me you’re putting ketchup on your French fries for fucking POWER, or EVOLUTIONARY SURVIVAL. Because, you’re really not. And if you said that to me when I was eating, I would fucking leave the table.

Mo wrote:

Lyssa wrote:

A hedonist who thinks in terms of pleasure alone and reduces it all to pleasure cannot make value-judgements on par with reality; his preservation and self-maintenance only and can only exist within a bubble.

Satyr claimed that self-maintenance is not a factor to a hedonist.
That is obviously false.

It is not, since the consequences are still evaluated only in terms of pain/pleasure.

Quote :

(How else is a hedonist going to maximize pleasure?)

He can only do that when reality doesnt interfere and he lives in some protective bubble. The hedonist is a hedonist because he wants the painless parts to be done away with.

Quote :

Furthermore, the hedonist is OBVIOUSLY making value judgments. Specifically, they reduce all different kinds of value to pleasure. They are reductionists, and monists about value. Hence, their judgements happen to be false, but they are OBVIOUSLY making value-judgments.

Value judgements, which, were it not for the bubble, would have painful repercussions on their way of living.

Quote :

Quote :

Honour for pleasure's sake, Pride for pleasure's sake, Principle for pleasure's sake defeats the very purpose of evaluating higher/lower kinds of living.

You can say that it misses what honour and pride actually are. That's perfectly fair, and I'd agree. But you can't say that a hedonist is incapable of distinguishing higher from lower in their own way.

Bull.

When you abstract something in terms of pleasure, that's a perversion of the value of a value itself.

Step outside yourself.

Quote :

Why do you think that Mill said, "Better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a pig satisfied"? ---Why would a hedonist say that?

Because Socratic wisdom is the reduction to happiness.

virtue = good = happiness.

Quote :

Quote :

You would have to develop a mature way of understanding what he is saying, instead of indulging in eargasming on your own 'dumb f---'.

You could, but then saying, 'step inside of yourself' makes you look a hypocrite.

You didn’t defend anything he said, and of course you didn’t, because it’s indefensible.

I am focussing on you. Your errors.

You have great enthusiasm to mock another as dumb, and that would be valid IF he was indeed an idiot, but its just you indulging in your own eargasm.

Quote :

Pleasure is a value and a goal among others.

To a hedonist, yes.

Quote :

And, please, don’t tell me you’re putting ketchup on your French fries for fucking POWER, or EVOLUTIONARY SURVIVAL. Because, you’re really not. And if you said that to me when I was eating, I would fucking leave the table.

"FOR" f---ing pleasure???

I can't be responsible for you infering that "FOR" as if I said I live for power like it were another variable like pleasure  or beauty,,, when I've said I AMMMM power.

Ask Sauwelios to teach you what will-to-power means.

I'm confident that even he understands since not once, but TWICE I've quoted Heidegger's explanation of it to you.

Power is not separate after the to, like an objective, but inherent in the very essence of willing.

Lyssa wrote:

Mo wrote:

Satyr claimed that self-maintenance is not a factor to a hedonist.
That is obviously false.

It is not, since the consequences are still evaluated only in terms of pain/pleasure.

So, you think a hedonist is someone who pursues the greatest amount of pain, as long as they get short-term immediate pleasure? --That's the idiotic criticism of hedonism you'll defend?

Quote :

He can only do that when reality doesnt interfere and he lives in some protective bubble. The hedonist is a hedonist because he wants the painless parts to be done away with.

Of course he does, unless short-term pain secures him longer term pleasure. (I'm sure a hedonist goes to a dentist... wonder why?).

In the jungle, a hedonist is not going to eat the berries that taste good, when he knows they'll make him sick. Is that hard to fathom, for you?

Quote :

When you abstract something in terms of pleasure, that's a perversion of the value of a value itself.

I know that. But you claimed that hedonists are incapable of making distinctions between higher and lower pleasures. That's obviously false. It's purely your ignorance.

Quote :

You have great enthusiasm to mock another as dumb, and that would be valid IF he was indeed an idiot, but its just you indulging in your own eargasm.

- Fucking a fat cow is the same as a beautiful woman, and fucking a fat cow is a pleasure at all.
- Hedonists only go for short-term pleasure and longer-term pain.

But, you're right. It's not valid even if he is an idiot.

- - - -

When you act, you will have a reason that motivates your action, from your own perspective...
Sometimes, pleasure is the reason why you do something.
Do you object to that?

A moron puts the sensation of reduced need on a pedestal, to avoid the reality of existence.
Then he can act, with only himself as the central actor.

Everything evaporates before his sensations and personal interests.
No values, no principles, no nobility, no consideration for the next generation...nothing but a manimal pretending to be something enlightened.
Ayn Rand, a slut.

Suddenly hedonism has acquired the motives of Hellenic asceticism.
In a day or two, it will also claim a moral high-ground, perhaps.

Mo wrote:

Lyssa wrote:

Mo wrote:

Satyr claimed that self-maintenance is not a factor to a hedonist.
That is obviously false.

It is not, since the consequences are still evaluated only in terms of pain/pleasure.

So, you think a hedonist is someone who pursues the greatest amount of pain, as long as they get short-term immediate pleasure? --That's the idiotic criticism of hedonism you'll defend?

I was quoting you.

Mo said, "You seem to think that a hedonist must be short-sighted to the point of 5 minutes in the future, such that he is incapable of evaluating future consequences (which, obviously, he will do in terms of pleasure and pain)."

Quote :

Quote :

He can only do that when reality doesnt interfere and he lives in some protective bubble. The hedonist is a hedonist because he wants the painless parts to be done away with.

Of course he does, unless short-term pain secures him longer term pleasure.

So you agree, he lives in a bubble where reality doesn't interfere.

Quote :

In the jungle, a hedonist is not going to eat the berries that taste good, when he knows they'll make him sick. Is that hard to fathom, for you?

And I said as long as reality doesn't interfere and slam him with repercussions... a hedonist will f--- and eat indiscriminately until reality hits him with poison or he contracts AIDS...

Quote :

Quote :

When you abstract something in terms of pleasure, that's a perversion of the value of a value itself.

I know that. But you claimed that hedonists are incapable of making distinctions between higher and lower pleasures. That's obviously false. It's purely your ignorance.

Its purely your ignorance when everything is reduced to pleasure, you deny that Honour or Beauty would still be what it is. Reduction is the doing away with distinctions silly.
Dont play word games just to save face.
Step outside of yourself.

Quote :

Quote :

You have great enthusiasm to mock another as dumb, and that would be valid IF he was indeed an idiot, but its just you indulging in your own eargasm.

- Fucking a fat cow is the same as a beautiful woman, and fucking a fat cow is a pleasure at all.
- Hedonists only go for short-term pleasure and longer-term pain.

But, you're right. It's not valid even if he is an idiot.

- To a hedonist who finds pleasure in f--- itself, doesn't matter what cow it is.

- To a hedonist who is immersed in pleasure for its own sake, even cooking for its own sake becomes a great way of life, doesnt matter what crap he cooks.

But, continue to pretend he is an idiot when you Choose to want to see him that way, and then some more, projecting your own limits as his limitation.


- - - -

Quote :

When you act, you will have a reason that motivates your action, from your own perspective...
Sometimes, pleasure is the reason why you do something.
Do you object to that?

Pleasure does not determine my tastes.

later.

Lyssa wrote:

And I said as long as reality doesn't interfere and slam him with repercussions... a hedonist will f--- and eat indiscriminately until reality hits him with poison or he contracts AIDS...

Why would a hedonist eat or fuck indiscriminately knowing what the consequences of his actions would be?

Quote :

Its purely your ignorance when everything is reduced to pleasure, you deny that Honour or Beauty would still be what it is. Reduction is the doing away with distinctions silly.
Dont play word games just to save face.
Step outside of yourself.

Hedonism is false because other values do not reduce to pleasure. But, within pleasure, hedonists can distinguish between kinds, types, levels---such as almost every hedonist actually does. Sorry, your simplistic stick figure is ignorance.

Quote :

To a hedonist who finds pleasure in f--- itself, doesn't matter what cow it is.

No, to a decadent it doesn't matter if you fuck a fat cow...

Quote :

Pleasure does not determine my tastes.

Why do you put ketchup on french fries?

Is it your will to power?

Lyssa, your "bubble " is complete nonsense.
A man who suffers aims to relieve himself of suffering. The relief of suffering is a pleasure.
A man can work a whole day picking cotton under the sun for a loaf of bread, and feel great joy at the end of his day when he eats that bread, as bland as it may taste, because he feels accomplished to have earned that bread with the work of his hands.
If all that man cares about is the satiation of a need, shouldn't he simply go and steal a piece of bread?

Can you understand how pleasure is everywhere, even outside of a protective bubble?
Can you understand how in a bubble, one can also feel miserable?
And can you understand a man finding greater pleasure in earning his food, rather than stealing, for fucks sake?

Good, Strong, Omnipotent, Omniscient, Power, Beauty, Self, One, all words describing the same absent absolute.

Each defining the individual striving towards it as an object/objective.

Pleasure = diminishment of need, a partial and temporary alleviation of the consciousness of existence.
Need = consciousness of Flux, a temporal attrition on an ordering/becoming emergent unity.
Suffering/Pain = need left unsatiated, the increase in stress, as the unity begins losing cohesion.

Any decadent mind can make it his or her end.
Who cares?
The premises not addressed, only simplified to a sensation, and turned into an ideal, and I am done, with dumb and dumber.

Lyssa wrote:

Epicurus had a 'Garden'.

I'm sure all he ever had was spontaneously grown weeds.

Satyr wrote:

Suddenly hedonism has acquired the motives of Hellenic asceticism.

Suddenly??
Because you have no idea of what hedonism is, are you suddenly perplexed?
Hellenic asceticism IS hedonism.
And you ARE an idiot.

Lyssa wrote:

Its purely your ignorance when everything is reduced to pleasure, you deny that Honour or Beauty would still be what it is. Reduction is the doing away with distinctions silly. 

Is that what happens when you reduce everything to need, too, or does that just happen to pleasure?

Lyssa wrote:

Pleasure does not determine my tastes.

She doesn't like what she likes, she likes what she is supposed to like.
What a good girl you are.

Mo wrote:

Lyssa wrote:

And I said as long as reality doesn't interfere and slam him with repercussions... a hedonist will f--- and eat indiscriminately until reality hits him with poison or he contracts AIDS...

Why would a hedonist eat or fuck indiscriminately knowing what the consequences of his actions would be?

If the pursuit of pleasure is the only end, then he would continue indulging indiscriminately until reality makes him aware of the cost of his indiscrimination.

Quote :

Quote :

Its purely your ignorance when everything is reduced to pleasure, you deny that Honour or Beauty would still be what it is. Reduction is the doing away with distinctions silly.
Dont play word games just to save face.
Step outside of yourself.

Hedonism is false because other values do not reduce to pleasure. But, within pleasure, hedonists can distinguish between kinds, types, levels---such as almost every hedonist actually does. Sorry, your simplistic stick figure is ignorance.

Your own ignorance is appalling, you might as well call everybody you cant comprehend an idiot and enjoy your eargasm,,, and if it were only that simplistic, then as recorded in the Stanford Encyp. of Philosophy, Aristotle would not have felt a need to critique hedonism for the same reasons as I do, and the only way it is countered, is by a move called "Adjustment" of this, this, or that...
Which means *because the hedonist's reduction does away with means of value-distinction, clauses in the form of objection-responses had to be introduced to correct that *within the original definition of hedonism as pleasure being the "only" intrinsic good;

Quote :

"Philosophers commonly distinguish between psychological hedonism and ethical hedonism. Psychological hedonism is the view that humans are psychologically constructed in such a way that we exclusively desire pleasure. Ethical hedonism is the view that our fundamental moral obligation is to maximize pleasure or happiness. Ethical hedonism is most associated with the ancient Greek philosopher Epicurus (342-270 BCE.) who taught that our life's goal should be to minimize pain and maximize pleasure. In fact, all of our actions should have that aim:

"We recognize pleasure as the first good innate in us, and from pleasure we begin every act of choice and avoidance, and to pleasure we return again, using the feeling as the standard by which we judge every good."
[Epicurus, Letter to Menoeceus]

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Given that,

Quote :

"Aristotle (Book x, ch. 3) argued that some pleasure is disgraceful or base. Brentano (1889/1969: 90) argued that “pleasure in the bad” both lacks value and has disvalue. Moore (sec. 56) expressed similar thoughts in a bracingly concrete manner by imagining the pleasures of “perpetual indulgence in bestiality” and claiming them to be not good but bad. Self-destructive or masochistic pleasure, pleasure with a non-existent or false object, and contra-deserved pleasure are some other targets of insufficiency objections to hedonism about value.

Hedonists can respond in various ways to insufficiency objections. These are canvassed below.

A second hedonist response is to accept that the insufficiency objector has indeed found a case that is insufficient for value, but then to claim that it is not an instance of pleasure. This sort of response is underpinned by the hedonist's insistence on the wider thought that anything insufficient for value is not pleasure."

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Quote :

To a hedonist who finds pleasure in f--- itself, doesn't matter what cow it is.

No, to a decadent it doesn't matter if you fuck a fat cow...

Quote :

Pleasure does not determine my tastes.

Degrees and Ranks.

To a Master, the hedonist is a decadent; to the hedonist, a certain kind of hedonist is a decadent.

Quote :

Why do you put ketchup on french fries?

Is it your will to power?

There's a difference between doing something *for* pleasure, and doing something *from* pleasure, and I have already distinguished that difference in the Aesthetics thread.
To me, pleasure is an effect of a certain way of living (self-assertion), in willing, in the consciousness of power, and not an "innate good", not a causal - only an epiphenomenon.  
Consciousness itself is only a means, not an ends, and so reasoning too is not an ends in itself for me. It is a *means-to. Arresting that infinite regress - means as an ends, is a nihilism.

Lyssa wrote:

If the pursuit of pleasure is the only end, then he would continue indulging indiscriminately until reality makes him aware of the cost of his indiscrimination

Yes, I think you're right... the hedonist discriminates because he knows the consequences of his actions, and he measures those in terms of pleasure/pain. This isn't unique to a hedonist. If the pursuit of power is your only end, then you will continue indulging in power-plays indiscriminately until reality makes you aware of the cost of your indiscrimination.

Quote :

Which means *because the hedonist's reduction does away with means of value-distinction, clauses in the form of objection-responses had to be introduced to correct that *within the original definition of hedonism as pleasure being the "only" intrinsic good;

One of the problems with hedonism is that other values cannot be reduced just to their pleasure-value, without violence to those values---without mistaking what they are. Also, when you try to reduce all values to ‘pleasure’, you have to expand the boundaries of the term ‘pleasure’ to encompass soo much that it renders the term 'pleasure' itself vague and meaningless. These are fair criticisms. I’d apply the same criticism to anyone who reduced all values to ‘power’, or ‘evolutionary fitness’, or any other single value. This is a problem with reductionism in general, not just hedonism.

Lyssa wrote:

Your own ignorance is appalling, you might as well call everybody you cant comprehend an idiot and enjoy your eargasm,,, and if it were only that simplistic, then as recorded in the Stanford Encyp. of Philosophy, Aristotle would not have felt a need to critique hedonism for the same reasons as I do...

Are you familiar with this text by Aristotle, dear?
Aristotle does not provide a critique of hedonism, but a defense. He argues that some "pleasure is disgraceful or base", only to then demonstrate how that is not a objection to hedonism.
He actually criticizes negative views on pleasure so harshly that he aaaalllmost admits that pleasure is the supreme good.
You should check it out.

I can find it and post it for you, if you want me to. Then you can highlight the parts you agree with, and the ones you don't.

Tiny twat,

You're wrong like usual. When, the fuck, are you ever right? In fact, here's a little hint. Just start thinking the exact opposite as you normally do. This ought to increase the odds and probability that within all the stupid shit you speak, you'll actually say something correct by accident. Because you sure as shit aren't going to get there on your own.

Now let me hold your hand and show you how to think a bit.

We go to a restaurant, eat a delicious steak dinner with some delicious cheesecake dessert. We're full. Do we continue stuffing our face, even though we're full? Do we continue to shove food down our throats like a fat cow? No, we don't, because we're not decadent hedonists. If we were hedonists, then we would claim that the dinner is the point of our existence. And there is nothing else than this. Eating a good meal is the best life has to offer. And we would apply this logic elsewhere.

Like morality. "If it feels good, do it, why hesitate?"

But we don't. We don't do everything that feels good. And we probably should not do everything that feels good. Maybe stealing feels good, does that mean, do it? To a hedonist, yes.

If our stomachs are full, do we continue gorging ourselves? To a decadent fat fuck, yes, we do.

So we are neither hedonist nor decadent. And if you become either then I'm going to kick your fat ass to the curb, biooooootch.

Idiot.

Shut up and kiss me, tiny twat.