Philosophy Now Forum

Here is list of Hedonism so far mentioned in WIKI, IEP and SEP,
please add if you have any.

1.. Philosophical Hedonism
2.. Folk Hedonism
3..Non- or anti-Hedonism

1.. Philosophical Hedonism
1.1 Psychological of Motivational Hedonism
1.2 Axiological or Evaluative Hedonism
1.3 Ethical or Normative Hedonism
1.4 Others
1.5 Modified Form of Hedonism

1.1 Psychological or Motivational Hedonism
• the pursuit of pleasure and the avoidance of pain are the only sources of all motivation..
Egoism Hedonism - people strive to increase their own happiness.
Reflective or Rationalizing Hedonism – re overall consequences
Genetic Hedonism - each desire has its origin in a desire for pleasure
• Sub-types:
o Inferential Hedonism (I-Hedonism): People desire things only because they believe those things will bring them pleasure.
o Reinforcement Hedonism (R-Hedonism): Pleasure and pain reinforce certain desires, making them more likely to be pursued in the future.

1.2 Axiological or Evaluative Hedonism
• pleasure is the sole source of intrinsic value
• Sub-types:

Prudential Hedonism is a form of axiological Hedonism that focuses specifically Well-being or what is good for an individual.
Attitudinal Hedonism: Prudential Hedonism that defines pleasure as a pro-attitude.
Value Hedonism holds that all and only pleasure is intrinsically valuable and all and only pain is intrinsically disvaluable. [IEP]
Quantitative Hedonism, the intrinsic value of pleasure depends solely on its intensity and duration.
Qualitative hedonists hold that the quality of pleasure is an additional factor.

Hedonic Nihilism: Pleasure is the only good and pain is the only bad, with nothing else having intrinsic value. (Rarely held view)
Qualitative Hedonism: Focuses on the quality of pleasure, with higher-order pleasures (intellectual, aesthetic) being more valuable than lower-order pleasures (physical). (Proposed by John Stuart Mill)

1.3 Ethical or Normative Hedonism
• the pursuit of pleasure and the avoidance of pain are the highest moral principles of human behavior Sub-types:
o Egoistic Hedonism: Focuses on maximizing one's own pleasure.
o Utilitarian Hedonism (Classical Utilitarianism): Aims to maximize the total pleasure of all individuals. (Difficulties in measuring and comparing pleasure across individuals)

1.4 Others
• Aesthetic Hedonism is a theory about the nature of aesthetic value or beauty.
• Psychological Egoism: Similar to Egoistic Hedonism, but focuses on self-interest rather than pleasure specifically.
• Hedonic Calculus (Bentham): A framework for calculating the pleasurable and painful consequences of actions to determine the best course of action. (Criticized for subjectivity and practicality)
• Spiritual Hedonism – Thomas Aquinas
• monistic Hedonism - SEP
• pluralistic Hedonism - SEP

1.5 Modified Form of Hedonism
Fred Feldman - Attitudinal Hedonism: pleasure’s value must be adjusted based on whether it is appropriate or deserved
Peter Singer (1946–present) has expanded classical Hedonism to include concerns about animal welfare.[f] He has advocated effective altruism, relying on empirical evidence and reason to prioritize actions that have the most significant positive impact.
Michel Onfray (1959–present) has aimed to rehabilitate Epicurean Hedonism in a modern form.

David Pearce (1959–present) has developed a transhumanist version of Hedonism, arguing for the use of modern technology, ranging from genetic engineering to nanotechnology, to reduce suffering and possibly eliminate it in the future.


2.. Folk Hedonism
-a lifestyle dedicated to the egoistic pursuit of short-term gratification- pejorative.


3. Non-Hedonism, Anti-Hedonism, and Asceticism
The strongest rejection of Hedonism, sometimes termed anti-Hedonism, claims that all pleasures are bad.
Asceticism is a lifestyle dedicated to a program of self-discipline that renounces worldly pleasures.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Nov 06, 2024 5:15 am As Kant had stated, philosophy strive to realize the vision and mission of humanity, i.e.
1. Who am I? [know thyself]
2. What can I know? [epistemology]
3. What can I do? [Morality & Ethics]
4. What can I hope for? Progressing toward the Ideal of Perpetual Peace.

Your counter to confine Hedonism as a theory is a sham and not in accordance with philosophy-proper.
The point is whatever you theorize must be practical eventually to contribute to the progress of humanity towards the ideal of perpetual peace.

Note the following aspects of the above:
Kant stated it so it is true.
VA thinks he is in a pösition to say what belongs in philosophy or as he calls it philosophy proper. (my point here is not that VA, of all people is showing hubris here, but anyone, regardless of expertise how decided they could say 'that philosophical position is not part of philosophy would be being arrogant)
VA thinks that only if someone's philosophical position fits VA's values and goals can it be considered part of philosophy.

IOW he's dismissing, not arguing here, and placing a position outside philosophy because it does not fit with VA's positions.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Nov 06, 2024 5:34 am Here is list of Hedonism so far mentioned in WIKI, IEP and SEP,
please add if you have any.

Desire satisfaction theory or preference hedonism. A lot of these positions get different names, perhaps this one is somewhere in your list. But that's one of the most respected current hedonisms.

And it's odd, isn't it, that you find references to Hedonism in philosophical contexts when supposedly hedonism isn't even a part of philosophy.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Tue Nov 05, 2024 4:06 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Nov 03, 2024 7:06 am

AI wrote:Here is a presentation on Refutation of Hedonism and its limitations based on the given website and some additional information I found on the web:

Refutation of Hedonism
Hedonism is the philosophical theory that pleasure is the only intrinsic good. Intrinsic goods are goods that are valued for their own sake, rather than for their instrumental value in producing something else.

There are several arguments against hedonism:
Moore's heap of filth. G.E. Moore argued that pleasure cannot be the only good because there are some things that are good even if they produce no pleasure. For example, he argued that it would be better for a beautiful world to exist than a heap of filth, even if no one ever experienced either world. This suggests that beauty is good in itself, not just because it produces pleasure.

OK, you're an anti-realist. You don't see the problem of this example. What is a world that is never experienced to an metaphysical antirealist? What is not experienced beauty? Talk about a realist mind independent reality. Do you read the arguments you find or get AIs to generate?

The problem of false pleasures. Some pleasures are not good. For example, the pleasure of getting drunk may be enjoyable in the moment, but it can have negative consequences in the long run.

Where is it written that one only looks at the immediate pleasures and pains? I don't see such a naive hedonism anywhere in philosophy, but further it shouldn't just be assumed. Hangovers cause pain, for example. Alcoholism, driving while drunk, cause pain. And so on. This is a strawman hedonism.

The difficulty of defining pleasure. There is no universally agreed-upon definition of pleasure. What one person finds pleasurable, another person may find unpleasant. This makes it difficult to use pleasure as the basis of a moral theory.

That's true of every moral theory. Individuals have different values.

Limitations of Hedonism

Hedonism also faces a number of limitations:

Hedonism does not take into account the importance of other things in life, such as love, friendship, and justice.

No reason the pleasures and pains involved in those complex phenomena cannot be part of hedonism.

Hedonism can be difficult to put into practice. It can be hard to know how to maximize pleasure in all situations.

I don't see any easy to put in practice moral systems. Or has it been easy to put yours in place...so far?

Hedonism can lead to a selfish and self-centered way of life. If pleasure is the only good, then there is no reason to care about the well-being of others.

Wrong. Empathy, which is a natural trait of social mammals including humans means that other people's pain and pleasure affect our pain and pleasure.

The future of hedonism

The future of hedonism seems bleak. Hedonism has been around for centuries, but it has never been a very popular philosophy. This is likely because of the limitations discussed above.

I'm sorry are you saying that hedonism is not popular? Obviously people value hedonism now more than ever, they tend to be embarrassed to call it a moral system because the term itself has become pejorative, but it is an extremely popular value system, supported by tech and corporate culture and goals. It tidily fits with capitalism.

In addition to the limitations discussed above, hedonism also faces a number of challenges from contemporary moral philosophy. For example, virtue ethics emphasizes the importance of character and virtue, rather than pleasure. And utilitarianism emphasizes the importance of maximizing happiness, rather than pleasure.

All the various moral systems face challenges from others. That holds for all of them, including yours, which is not very popular at all and therefore not that objective according to your own criteria.

I believe the above objections are included in my long post to CIN.


CIN's confining his Hedonism to merely theory is not philosophy-proper where feasibility and practicality is of utmost importance.

My moral system is already in practice in its primitive and crude forms, i.e.

1. Tribalistic morality
2. The Christianity moral system
3. Parallel with the legislature re criminality
4. The UN declaration of Human Rights
5. Various consequential systems as part of mine.

If the Ideal is 100/100
the above [not effective] are at best 10/100 to 40/100
mine is planned at 80/100 which is feasible and practical in the future.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Wed Nov 06, 2024 5:39 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Nov 06, 2024 5:15 am As Kant had stated, philosophy strive to realize the vision and mission of humanity, i.e.
1. Who am I? [know thyself]
2. What can I know? [epistemology]
3. What can I do? [Morality & Ethics]
4. What can I hope for? Progressing toward the Ideal of Perpetual Peace.

Your counter to confine Hedonism as a theory is a sham and not in accordance with philosophy-proper.
The point is whatever you theorize must be practical eventually to contribute to the progress of humanity towards the ideal of perpetual peace.

Note the following aspects of the above:
Kant stated it so it is true.
VA thinks he is in a pösition to say what belongs in philosophy or as he calls it philosophy proper. (my point here is not that VA, of all people is showing hubris here, but anyone, regardless of expertise how decided they could say 'that philosophical position is not part of philosophy would be being arrogant)
VA thinks that only if someone's philosophical position fits VA's values and goals can it be considered part of philosophy.

IOW he's dismissing, not arguing here, and placing a position outside philosophy because it does not fit with VA's positions.

The above are very obvious; the details are presented elsewhere.
It is up to you to counter it why it cannot be true?

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Wed Nov 06, 2024 5:44 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Nov 06, 2024 5:34 am Here is list of Hedonism so far mentioned in WIKI, IEP and SEP,
please add if you have any.

Desire satisfaction theory or preference hedonism. A lot of these positions get different names, perhaps this one is somewhere in your list. But that's one of the most respected current hedonisms.

And it's odd, isn't it, that you find references to Hedonism in philosophical contexts when supposedly hedonism isn't even a part of philosophy.

These days when we do a search, it will automatically generate answer from an AI; it appear Desire satisfaction theory and hedonism are separate theories, so will not be added to the list.

Desire satisfaction theory and hedonism are both theories of well-being that differ in how they define what makes a life go well:

Desire satisfaction theory
Also known as desire satisfactionism, this theory holds that well-being is achieved by satisfying desires or preferences. Desire theories are subjective because they are based on an individual's preferences.

Hedonism
This theory holds that well-being is achieved by having more pleasure than pain. Hedonists typically define pleasure and pain broadly to include both physical and mental phenomena.
Here are some other differences between desire satisfaction theory and hedonism:

Counterintuitive implications
Desire theories avoid the counterintuitive implications of hedonism. For example, desire theories can account for why people might be reluctant to use an experience machine, which offers happiness based on false beliefs.

Plausibility
Some say that the most plausible form of hedonism is also the most plausible form of desire satisfactionism. This is because pleasure can be defined as the subjective satisfaction of desire.

Comparisons between individuals
Different people may use scales differently, so they might arrive at different values even if they had similar experiences.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Nov 06, 2024 5:52 am CIN's confining his Hedonism to merely theory is not philosophy-proper where feasibility and practicality is of utmost importance.

And you are willing to scarifice all plausiblity to lay claim to those things.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Nov 06, 2024 5:55 am

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Wed Nov 06, 2024 5:39 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Nov 06, 2024 5:15 am As Kant had stated, philosophy strive to realize the vision and mission of humanity, i.e.
1. Who am I? [know thyself]
2. What can I know? [epistemology]
3. What can I do? [Morality & Ethics]
4. What can I hope for? Progressing toward the Ideal of Perpetual Peace.

Your counter to confine Hedonism as a theory is a sham and not in accordance with philosophy-proper.
The point is whatever you theorize must be practical eventually to contribute to the progress of humanity towards the ideal of perpetual peace.

Note the following aspects of the above:
Kant stated it so it is true.
VA thinks he is in a pösition to say what belongs in philosophy or as he calls it philosophy proper. (my point here is not that VA, of all people is showing hubris here, but anyone, regardless of expertise how decided they could say 'that philosophical position is not part of philosophy would be being arrogant)
VA thinks that only if someone's philosophical position fits VA's values and goals can it be considered part of philosophy.

IOW he's dismissing, not arguing here, and placing a position outside philosophy because it does not fit with VA's positions.

The above are very obvious; the details are presented elsewhere.
It is up to you to counter it why it cannot be true?

I don't think one person gets to decide that other philosophical positions do not belong in philosophy. Further the philosophy FSERC, as evidenced by your own findings on philosophy websites, place many positions in the category hedonism within philosophy. Your own research demonstrates that various hedonisms are considered philosophical positions and that they are held by philosophers. You can, obviously, disagree with those positions, but as a single person, lacking intersubjective confirmation, your own epistemology says that all you have is a mere, individual subjective position on the issue of whether hedonism is a part of philosophy.

This is so obvious I thought even you could work it out for yourself.

It is you who are asserting that hedonism is outside philosophy. Please link me to the post where you demonstrate this and please make sure this demonstration meets your own criteria for objectivity. And oddly you even provided a bulk of evidence against your own position in this thread.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Nov 06, 2024 5:59 am it appear Desire satisfaction theory and hedonism are separate theories, so will not be added to the list.

Some people put it as separate from hedonism, others do not. But if you ask your AI if satisfaction is pleasurable in this context it will show the silliness of making them separate postions. It's a modern hedonism.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Wed Nov 06, 2024 7:29 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Nov 06, 2024 5:55 am

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Wed Nov 06, 2024 5:39 am
Note the following aspects of the above:
Kant stated it so it is true.
VA thinks he is in a pösition to say what belongs in philosophy or as he calls it philosophy proper. (my point here is not that VA, of all people is showing hubris here, but anyone, regardless of expertise how decided they could say 'that philosophical position is not part of philosophy would be being arrogant)
VA thinks that only if someone's philosophical position fits VA's values and goals can it be considered part of philosophy.

IOW he's dismissing, not arguing here, and placing a position outside philosophy because it does not fit with VA's positions.

The above are very obvious; the details are presented elsewhere.
It is up to you to counter it why it cannot be true?

I don't think one person gets to decide that other philosophical positions do not belong in philosophy. Further the philosophy FSERC, as evidenced by your own findings on philosophy websites, place many positions in the category hedonism within philosophy. Your own research demonstrates that various hedonisms are considered philosophical positions and that they are held by philosophers. You can, obviously, disagree with those positions, but as a single person, lacking intersubjective confirmation, your own epistemology says that all you have is a mere, individual subjective position on the issue of whether hedonism is a part of philosophy.

This is so obvious I thought even you could work it out for yourself.

I did not claim one person can claim a philosophical position.
What I had claimed is because there are sufficient consensus to support the views I proposed.

I have argued what should be philosophy-proper is in natural alignment with human nature in contrast to other forms of bastardized philosophy e.g. academic philosophy, analytic philosophy, etc.

What is philosophy proper is like the natural flowing of water along the main river system towards the ocean instead of those water that end up in tributaries or ox-bow lakes that are stagnant.

I don't deny hedonism is a part of philosophy-in-general but it does not fit into philosophy-proper.
I had differentiated hedonism into Folk and Philosophical Hedonism which can be a part of philosophical discussion but it does not align with philosophy proper such that it does not contribute effective to the main purpose of philosophy in alignment with human nature.

It is you who are asserting that hedonism is outside philosophy. Please link me to the post where you demonstrate this and please make sure this demonstration meets your own criteria for objectivity. And oddly you even provided a bulk of evidence against your own position in this thread.

As mentioned hedonism is a part of philosophical discussion but it does not qualify within philosophy-proper which would contribute to the effective progress of humanity.

Hedonism leaves room for the possibility of the extermination of the human species.
e.g. it is a pleasure or pleasurable for some evil theists [or malignant psychopaths] to exterminate the human species with cheap WMDs in the future because regardless of what happen to Earth and humans, they are guaranteed eternal life in paradise.

Moral wise, moral relativism is also not philosophy-proper because they would condone or be indifferent to the extremists possible objective of exterminating the human species.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Wed Nov 06, 2024 7:34 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Nov 06, 2024 5:59 am it appear Desire satisfaction theory and hedonism are separate theories, so will not be added to the list.

Some people put it as separate from hedonism, others do not. But if you ask your AI if satisfaction is pleasurable in this context it will show the silliness of making them separate postions. It's a modern hedonism.

OK AI stated Desire satisfaction theory has a much wider scope but if pleasure is specifically mentioned, then it can be considered Hedonism [as qualified].

I asked AI to squeeze out from the internet whether there are other forms of hedonism:

Cyrenaic Hedonism: This view, associated with the ancient Greek philosopher Aristippus, emphasizes the pursuit of intense, immediate pleasures, often without regard for long-term consequences.
Western Hedonism: This would encompass the more traditional Western philosophical approaches, including those of the Cyrenaics, Epicureans, and modern utilitarian philosophers
Eastern Hedonism: While less explicitly focused on pleasure, certain Eastern philosophies like Epicureanism and some strands of Buddhism can be interpreted as forms of hedonism, albeit with a focus on long-term happiness and liberation from suffering.
Altruistic Hedonism: This prioritizes the pleasure of others, aiming to maximize the happiness of the greatest number of people.
Neurohedonism: This emerging field explores the neural basis of pleasure and pain, potentially offering new insights into the nature of hedonistic experiences.

Others:
Hedonism and Environmental Ethics: Some might argue that a hedonistic perspective could lead to unsustainable practices, while others might suggest that a focus on pleasure could motivate environmental conservation.
Hedonism and Future Technologies: As technology advances, new possibilities for experiencing pleasure and pain may arise, raising ethical questions and challenging traditional notions of hedonism.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Nov 06, 2024 8:02 am

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Wed Nov 06, 2024 7:29 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Nov 06, 2024 5:55 am
The above are very obvious; the details are presented elsewhere.
It is up to you to counter it why it cannot be true?

I don't think one person gets to decide that other philosophical positions do not belong in philosophy. Further the philosophy FSERC, as evidenced by your own findings on philosophy websites, place many positions in the category hedonism within philosophy. Your own research demonstrates that various hedonisms are considered philosophical positions and that they are held by philosophers. You can, obviously, disagree with those positions, but as a single person, lacking intersubjective confirmation, your own epistemology says that all you have is a mere, individual subjective position on the issue of whether hedonism is a part of philosophy.

This is so obvious I thought even you could work it out for yourself.

I did not claim one person can claim a philosophical position.

Well, duh. But you were one person making that claim, and I pointed this out.
If I say one person does not get to decide what is included in philosophy, in response to one person claiming that position X is not in philosophy, this does not mean you said' One person should decide what is in philosophy'

Really try to understand this basic point. I was not claiming you said that. I was claiming that was what you were DOING.

This is the same utterly basic confusion you have regarding many of your calling out strawman, when people are not saying you said X, but that what you were saying entails X.

This is the kind of basic interacting with other people in philosophy mistakes you make again and again.

The incredible irony here is that you presented a lot of evidence in later posts showing that your position is not a common one and that hedonism is considered part of philosophy by respected websites, by AIs, etc. And if you looked a bit further you'd find that in philosophy journals it is considered a part of philosophy.

You seem to think that if a strong argument is presented contradicting something it is not longer in philosophy. This is such a fundamental confusion and is coupled by other such fundamental confusions on your part that it leads to me suggesting you actually participate in some kind of educational or other philosophical setting where you get feedback you are paying to take seriously. It's easy for you to just dismiss things you don't like here.

What I had claimed is because there are sufficient consensus to support the views I proposed.

Which is simply not true and you've provided evidence yourself. My sense is that hedonism, even the most respected modern versions and not popular as moral positions. But that doesn't put them outside philosophy.

I have argued what should be philosophy-proper is in natural alignment with human nature in contrast to other forms of bastardized philosophy e.g. academic philosophy, analytic philosophy, etc.

Academic philosophy includes Kant. But notice what you are doing here. AGain, one person claiming that academic philosophy isn't philosophy. Imagine how you would react to someone arguing that mainstream science is wrong and is not science. You are creating a one-man FSERC. You are going against your own epistemology. And yes, you are claiming, but you are not demonstrating. NOtice how this consensus has no members. You just eliminated academic philosophy, which means anyone who is making a living out of philosophy, which means all the people with the most training.

Have you then filled in the gap with other people? No. Who is this consensus?

What is philosophy proper is like the natural flowing of water along the main river system towards the ocean instead of those water that end up in tributaries or ox-bow lakes that are stagnant.

That's very pretty but it's evidence of nothing.

I don't deny hedonism is a part of philosophy-in-general but it does not fit into philosophy-proper.

According to you.

I had differentiated hedonism into Folk and Philosophical Hedonism which can be a part of philosophical discussion but it does not align with philosophy proper such that it does not contribute effective to the main purpose of philosophy in alignment with human nature.

You have an idiosyncatic use of a term which more or less means 'real philosophy' This is your opinion and aimed at positions you do not like. You are saying they aren't real philosophy based on their having different values and positions from you. It adds nothing to the discussion, whereas other activities you engage in to add to the discussion: for example presenting arguments against the position.

It is you who are asserting that hedonism is outside philosophy. Please link me to the post where you demonstrate this and please make sure this demonstration meets your own criteria for objectivity. And oddly you even provided a bulk of evidence against your own position in this thread.

As mentioned hedonism is a part of philosophical discussion but it does not qualify within philosophy-proper which would contribute to the effective progress of humanity.

No reference to t his consensus.

Hedonism leaves room for the possibility of the extermination of the human species.
e.g. it is a pleasure or pleasurable for some evil theists [or malignant psychopaths] to exterminate the human species with cheap WMDs in the future because regardless of what happen to Earth and humans, they are guaranteed eternal life in paradise.

Those could be expanded into criticisms of hedonism and hedonism as morality. Welcome to the world of philosophy. Some may level similar criticisms or different ones at your projects. This would not put your postions outside of philosophy or philosophy-proper.

Moral wise, moral relativism is also not philosophy-proper because they would condone or be indifferent to the extremists possible objective of exterminating the human species.

Same issue here: you are arguing against the position. You are not justifying claiming it is not part of philosophy or your hallucinated category philosophy proper.

Making claims like that is just trying to throw something that sounds meaningful, but is not, at a position you don't like. Following up on those arguments IS actually interacting with the ideas and potentially demonstrating they are wrong or weakly supported or dangerous.

Telling people they need to read more Kant has no substance; it's posturing.
Saying that hedonism is not philosophy proper has no substance. It does not move us anywhere in the discussion. It is posturing.

Obviously you have lines of criticism against hedonism and those have substance.

There is no consensus on hedonism being outside philosophy proper. Their is likely a majority who do not see hedonism as a good base for morality. But that is a different category.

These are the kinds of things you would learn in an academic setting.
But fuck academic settings. It's not the academic aspect or the adherence to academic focii or opinions that makes me suggest it. It's the having to take other people seriously and learning to interact with ideas rather than all this posturing and restating positions.

You could learn this in dialogue with another lay person face to face and develop your thinking. They might hate academic philosophy as much as you do. But face to face, you can't just dismiss people like you do here. You also can't avoid interacting. The other person can say to your face: hey you didn't respond to this point I made.

And none of this is about being right or wrong in your positions. It's about how you interact and also how you seems to misunderstand certain basic things about communication.

Of course, if you have a diverse social life and do not have communication issues with people, then it may seem ridiculous to consider people here may be on to something.

You could try presenting your ideas in other philosophical forums The Philosophy Forum. People are generally more polite there. If you start getting similar reactions to how you post, rather than your positions themselves, you might then take the criticism seriously. If don't well, perfect.

The Antinomies of Pleasure and Pain
Antinomies meant for every thesis there is an antithesis.

AI wrote:Yes, the concepts of pleasure and pain can be seen as entangled in a kind of antinomic relationship.
While pleasure is often sought and pain avoided, the two are often intertwined. For instance:

1.The Pursuit of Pleasure and the Risk of Pain: Many pleasurable activities involve inherent risks. A thrill-seeker might enjoy the adrenaline rush of a dangerous sport, but they also risk injury or death.

2. The Role of Pain in Pleasure: Sometimes, pain can be a necessary precursor to pleasure. For example, the satisfaction of overcoming a difficult challenge often comes after enduring pain and hardship.

3. The Relativity of Pleasure and Pain: What is pleasurable for one person may be painful for another. Cultural, personal, and situational factors can significantly influence how individuals experience pleasure and pain.

4. The Paradox of Hedonism: The relentless pursuit of pleasure can paradoxically lead to dissatisfaction and suffering. As Epicurus pointed out, the absence of pain is often more conducive to happiness than the pursuit of intense pleasure.

These antinomies highlight the complex and often contradictory nature of human experience. While pleasure is often seen as a positive and desirable state, it is not always a straightforward pursuit. Understanding the relationship between pleasure and pain can help us to make more informed choices about how we live our lives.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Nov 06, 2024 5:15 am

CIN wrote: ↑Tue Nov 05, 2024 3:09 pm As I have said before, we are discussing ethical theory. All you are doing by introducing stuff about practices is dodging the issue.

You are lost with what is ultimate with philosophy, i.e. as in the typical accusation that philosophy is "armchair mental masturbation" i.e. focusing on theory only.

As Kant had stated, philosophy strive to realize the vision and mission of humanity, i.e.
1. Who am I? [know thyself]
2. What can I know? [epistemology]
3. What can I do? [Morality & Ethics]
4. What can I hope for? Progressing toward the Ideal of Perpetual Peace.

Your counter to confine Hedonism as a theory is a sham and not in accordance with philosophy-proper.
The point is whatever you theorize must be practical eventually to contribute to the progress of humanity towards the ideal of perpetual peace.

CIN wrote: ↑Tue Nov 05, 2024 3:09 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Nov 03, 2024 7:06 am There are several arguments against hedonism:
Moore's heap of filth. G.E. Moore argued that pleasure cannot be the only good because there are some things that are good even if they produce no pleasure. For example, he argued that it would be better for a beautiful world to exist than a heap of filth, even if no one ever experienced either world. This suggests that beauty is good in itself, not just because it produces pleasure.

All this shows is that some people, including Moore, think that beauty is good in itself. The fact that people think this is no evidence that it is true.

Note this from IEP

ALL Hedonistic theories identify pleasure and pain as the only important elements of whatever phenomena they are designed to describe.
If Hedonistic theories identified pleasure and pain as merely two important elements, instead of the only important elements of what they are describing, then they would not be nearly as unpopular as they all are.
However, the claim that pleasure and pain are the only things of ultimate importance is what makes Hedonism distinctive and philosophically interesting.
https://iep.utm.edu/Hedonism/

Moore was countering against Hedonism's claim "pleasure and pain as the only important elements" by arguing there are other elements e.g. 'beauty' besides 'pleasure & pain'.

Moore's argument went out of fashion;

The demise of these arguments was partly due to mounting objections against them, but mainly because arguments more suited to the task of refuting Prudential Hedonism were developed.
Ibid IEP

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Nov 03, 2024 7:06 am The difficulty of defining pleasure. There is no universally agreed-upon definition of pleasure. What one person finds pleasurable, another person may find unpleasant. This makes it difficult to use pleasure as the basis of a moral theory.

First of all, let's be more accurate: instead of saying 'pleasure' and 'pain', we should really say 'pleasantness' and 'unpleasantness'. There is a distinction to be drawn between pain and unpleasantness; pain (noun) is unpleasant (adjective), therefore the unpleasantness of pain is a property of the pain, and is not identical with it. What we are concerned with in hedonism is not pain as such, but the unpleasantness of pain, and of other experiences. If there are people who find certain physical pains pleasant (I don't know whether there are or not), then for those people those pains are (other things being equal) not bad, but good.

Secondly, the fact that people find different things pleasant or unpleasant is irrelevant, since we're not talking about those things, but about pleasantness and unpleasantness themselves. And since everyone experiences pleasantness and unpleasantness, we all know what we're talking about (if we're honest), so there really is no problem. We don't need a definition to tell us what pleasantness and unpleasantness are, we all know that already. Do we need a definition to tell us what yellow is? I don't think so. We recognise yellow when we see it, and that's good enough.

I wrote somewhere, we are evolved with what is initially 'A: what is positive to survival= attract & BL what is negative = avoid'. Therefrom our ancestors were evolved with a nervous system of pleasure and pain from that basic.
Pleasantness and Unpleasantness is a 3rd level which is more complex, but it can be very sensitive that instead of leading what is positive [A] originally, it could lead to negative B.
E.g. presumably Hitler feel good and pleasant to exterminate all Jews.
My point is without first principles, things are likely to go awry, so resorting to Pleasantness and Unpleasantness is not recommended without the trail to its origins.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Nov 03, 2024 7:06 am Hedonism does not take into account the importance of other things in life, such as love, friendship, and justice.

This just begs the question of whether there are other intrinsic goods than pleasure. It's very typical of even professional philosophers that they simply accept the common opinion that there are other intrinsic goods without supporting evidence or argument.

I have argued even with the term intrinsic Good there are full of problems:
"Good" within Moral Philosophy
viewtopic.php?t=42955

How do you know 'good in itself' is true or even if it exists objectively as real?
Note Kant's argument, a thing-in-itself is a transcendental illusion.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Nov 03, 2024 7:06 am Hedonism can be difficult to put into practice. It can be hard to know how to maximize pleasure in all situations.

This is another error that philosophers have fallen into: confusing theory with practicality. It is no refutation of a theory to show that it is difficult, or even impossible, to put into practice.

see above re practicality is imperative in philosophy.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Nov 03, 2024 7:06 am Hedonism can lead to a selfish and self-centered way of life. If pleasure is the only good, then there is no reason to care about the well-being of others.

This is an obvious non sequitur. 'Pleasure is the only good' does not entail 'my pleasure is the only good.' There is nothing in hedonism that says that I cannot or should not aim to give pleasure to others.

I have read the WIKI, SEP and IEP articles on Hedonism and prepared all the various types and sub-types of Hedonism.

Axiological Hedonism is the view that pleasure is the sole source of intrinsic value. WIKI
Thus the objection above is valid.
What is your choice of Hedonism among the wide variety of Hedonism?

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Nov 03, 2024 7:06 am In addition to the limitations discussed above, hedonism also faces a number of challenges from contemporary moral philosophy. For example, virtue ethics emphasizes the importance of character and virtue, rather than pleasure. And utilitarianism emphasizes the importance of maximizing happiness, rather than pleasure.

The fact that a lot of philosophers believe in virtue ethics is no evidence that virtue ethics is true. And utilitarianism is a variety of hedonism, so if utilitarianism is true, then so is hedonism.

The principles used are not feasible to be practical [based on objections presented] to contribute to the effective progress of humanity.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Nov 03, 2024 7:06 am Oversimplification of Value: Hedonism reduces the complex spectrum of human values to a singular dimension of pleasure and pain. Many argue that other factors like knowledge, beauty, love, and justice also possess intrinsic value, independent of their hedonic consequences.

As I've already pointed out, this begs the question of whether there are other intrinsically valuable things than pleasantness. I really find it rather depressing that philosophers simply accept that there are other things, on no better basis than the fact that many people think there are.

?? note Hedonism as defined is confined to pleasure and pains, thus it ignore other elements that could be good in itself.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Nov 03, 2024 7:06 am Incommensurability of Values: Hedonism struggles to account for situations where different types of pleasure or pain are incommensurable. For example, is the short-term pleasure of a guilty pleasure comparable to the long-term satisfaction of a virtuous act?

I would challenge the view that there are different types of pleasantness and unpleasantness. I can easily understand what it means for the pleasantness of different experiences to differ in intensity and/or duration, but I do not understand what it would mean for different experiences to have different kinds of pleasantness. As far as I can see, if an experience is pleasant, then that is all that can be said: we cannot go on to say 'this experience has this kind of pleasantness rather than that kind.' What kinds would these be? If anyone thinks that there are different kinds of pleasantness or unpleasantness, it is up to them to say what those different kinds are. I think that if you try it, you will only be able to describe different kinds of pleasant and unpleasant experiences, not different kinds of pleasantness or unpleasantness.

I think what is happening here is that people are misattributing incommensurable qualities of the experiences themselves to the pleasantness or unpleasantness of those experiences. To take the example given: suppose the 'short-term pleasure of a guilty pleasure' is the pleasantness of eating a chocolate cake when we know we are supposed to be dieting, and suppose the 'long-term satisfaction of a virtuous act' is the pleasantness of feeling virtuous because last week you gave a substantial donation to a charity to help with flood relief, and you are still finding this pleasant to think about. The two experiences are obviously in many ways incommensurable: there is no analogue in the second experience to the tastiness of the cake, the sweetness as you eat it, the chocolatey smell, and so on. Likewise there is no analogue in the first experience to the feeling of satisfaction at having helped people in need. But none of these is a property of the pleasantness of either experience. I would argue that all the incommensurability is to be found in properties of those experiences other than their pleasantness; and if I am right, this objection to hedonism fails.

As above, you cannot ignore the practical and experience.
Also, pleasantness and unpleasantness are the sub-sub of the original intent of pleasure and pain thus likely to conflate pain[negative to survival] with pleasure[positive to survival] thus threatened the extermination of the human species.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Nov 03, 2024 7:06 am Quality vs. Quantity of Pleasure: Hedonism often focuses on the quantity of pleasure, neglecting the quality of experiences. Some argue that higher-order pleasures, such as intellectual or aesthetic pursuits, are more valuable than lower-order pleasures, even if they may not be as intense.

There are really three assertions here:
1. that pleasures can have different qualities
2. that these qualities can be ordered hierarchically, so that there are higher and lower order pleasures
3. that the supposed higher order pleasures are more valuable than the supposed lower order pleasures.
I would answer point 1 as I did for incommensurability: I think the qualities here are not different qualities of pleasantness, but of the experiences absent their pleasantness. As for points 2 and 3, these seem to me to be merely appealing to a common prejudice, generally on the part of intellectuals, against experiences in which they don't generally participate, and which they look down on. Once again, no evidence or argument is provided to justify this supposed hierarchical ordering of pleasures: I think all we are seeing here is snobbishness.

Note Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs.
What is pleasurable at the basic level of needs has no effect when humans evolved through the various levels.
Also, Maslow's theory suggests that humans have a hierarchy of needs, and lower-level needs must be satisfied before higher-level needs become motivating. This challenges the hedonistic idea that pleasure is the sole intrinsic good.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Nov 03, 2024 7:06 am The Paradox of Hedonism: The pursuit of pleasure as an ultimate goal can paradoxically lead to frustration and dissatisfaction. Excessive focus on pleasure can hinder one's ability to appreciate life's simple joys and can lead to neglecting other important aspects of well-being.

This objection is not actually against hedonism as a philosophical theory, it is merely a cautionary note aimed at those who try too hard to get pleasant experiences; therefore it is irrelevant to whether the theory is true or not.

Morality is about actions and experience to progress, not mere theory.
Where your theory focus on pleasure, when applied it will trigger people to chase pleasure which a never ending cycle of sufferings.
Note addictions [drugs and other harmful activities] what is pleasure initially get numbed which entail greater efforts which cause irreparable damage.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Nov 03, 2024 7:06 am Moral Considerations: Hedonism can sometimes justify actions that are morally questionable if they lead to personal pleasure, even if they harm others. This raises concerns about the ethical implications of a purely pleasure-based morality.

This again commits the error of assuming that hedonism prescribes pleasant experiences only for oneself. Prudential hedonism is only one variant of hedonism, and not the variant I subscribe to.

The above objection is valid to Hedonism whichever is applicable.
What is your variant of Hedonism?

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Nov 03, 2024 7:06 am While hedonism offers a simple and intuitive framework for understanding value, it is a limited perspective that fails to capture the full richness and complexity of human experience.

This objection really answers itself. The purpose of hedonism as a theory is, indeed, to provide a framework for understanding value: that is all it is intended to do, and it is absurd to criticise it for not doing things it is not meant to do.

Note my argument above, philosophy thus philosophy of Hedonism must be translatable to actions and the practical to facilitate the progress of humanity and avoiding its extinction.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Nov 03, 2024 7:06 am War [killing of human is inevitable] in the first place is immoral to begin with.
Cowardice in war is in a way, moral, i.e. the avoidance to be killed by humans.

Cowardice in war is not refusing to kill people, it is trying to save yourself and to hell with anyone else. You are confusing being a coward with being a conscientious objector, which is utterly different.

You missed my point.
It is moral because its ultimate consequence is no human is killed, so indirectly meet the objective of morality.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Nov 02, 2024 5:59 am As I stated, war [inevitable killing of humans] is immoral in the first place.
Soldiers are thus engaging in immoral activities.
Soldiers who are highly moral as human beings had been evidenced to shoot off target when facing their enemies thus avoiding having to kill humans.

So I suppose that if you had been the British Prime Minister in 1940, instead of fighting the Nazis you would have surrendered to them and then stood by and watched as they took away the 300,000 Jews then living in Britain to the concentration camps and gas chambers. And you would then have been complicit in mass cruelty and genocide.

Unconditional pacifism is a very naive doctrine. It is based on the assumption that going to war can never prevent an evil greater than the war itself. This assumption is false.

You missed my point again.
The main aim of morality is to avoid all wars.
But if war is declared, then one got to do one's duty of war.

It was a natural unfoldment of the inherent moral function within all humans that the UN was formed to prevent future wars; there is moral progress but unfortunately if competency is not enough. This is a reason why we need to recognize the objective inherent moral function within all humans to expedite its unfoldment and degree of competency.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Nov 03, 2024 7:06 am You missed the point.
Having to deal with too many variables is messy, i.e. not efficient and not adopting Occam.
You deny this?

It's stupid and irrelevant. If it is morally required to get into messy situations, then that is what you should do. Morality trumps everything, including messiness.

You don't agree with the Principles of Occam Razor?
Point is if one is thrown into a messy situation, we must apply Occam to ensure resolving the mess is effective.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Oct 29, 2024 5:27 am It is obvious, non-human animals do not have the same capacity nervous system like humans that of humans.
Some higher non-human animals may have the same expressions of pleasure and pains as humans but such experience wears off immediate the stimuli is absent.

If they experience pleasantness or unpleasantness at all, then we ought to treat them well.

The material point here is that whether non-humans experience pleasantness and/or unpleasantness has no effect on the correctness of my theory. If they do, the theory says we should treat them well. If they don't, the theory says that it doesn't matter how we treat them. The theory thus covers all possible situations.

Why mess up with whether they do or not.
It is effective [rationalized] just to leave non-human-animals out of human morality but deal with them humanely and optimally.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Oct 29, 2024 5:27 am Show me where Hedonism has been put fully into practice with some reasonable or possible success.
I have checked with AI, it only show some practices in ancient times but none in the present.

As I have said before, we are discussing ethical theory. All you are doing by introducing stuff about practices is dodging the issue.

Note above where I argue experiences and practices is imperative within philosophy. Here is not a "jerk-circle". The human species is trending toward extinction with the easy accessible and cheaper WMDs.

I have no time to review and edit this long post, it may contain errors and omissions; [pardon the grammar] will correct it if pointed out.

This will be the last time I speak to you, because you are simply repeating the mistakes I have tried to correct, and I can see that you probably always will. Your errors include;
- failing to grasp that a theory's correctness does not depend on whether it can be put into practice, with a resulting complete failure to assess theories to see which if any is correct
- supposing incorrectly that you have refuted a position by simply listing objections to it, without examining those objections to see if they are sound
- supposing incorrectly that you have refuted a position by simply stating alternative opinions, especially your own
- uncritically quoting the products of AI software and supposing that this makes a material contribution to debate
- confusing the evolutionary history of sentience with the question whether pleasure is good and pain is bad
- supposing incorrectly that you can safely ignore the problem of what moral words such as 'good' mean, and thereby failing to understand that the question 'what things are good, and why?' must be answered if any progress in ethics is to be made
- setting your favourite philosopher (Kant) on a pedestal and uncritically accepting his views.

I don't know whether a professional philosophy tutor would be able to get you to see these errors and correct them, but at any rate I can't, because I don't have the time or tools or inclination.

Goodbye.

Just to show that VA's own approach to discrediting hedonism coupled with his intersubjective = objectivity undermines empirical realism. I asked VA's Bible, Chatgpt, about the popularity of empirical realism in philosophy. It is certain respected and has influenced current positions and approaches, but it is NOT in a majority position.

Note: my prompts were not biased. I simply asked what percentage of current philosophers believe in empirical realism. It did not want to give a percentage but it was clear it is not one of the more popular positions. I then followed up asking what are the main positions today and here is what VA's substitute brain said:

"In contemporary philosophy, Kant’s concept of empirical realism—where our knowledge and experience are limited to appearances and structured by categories of thought—does not hold as dominant a position as it once did. Instead, analytic philosophy and related areas in epistemology and metaphysics are much more popular. For instance, materialism (or physicalism) is widely accepted, which posits that everything is ultimately physical or material. In metaphysics, various forms of realism, especially scientific realism, are also more widely endorsed, emphasizing that scientific theories aim to describe an objective reality beyond human perception.

Other well-represented views include forms of naturalism, which reject supernatural explanations in favor of scientific ones, and approaches in epistemology that explore rationalism, empiricism, and naturalized epistemology. In ethics, consequentialism and virtue ethics often hold more attention compared to Kantian deontological ethics, although Kantian moral theory remains a significant influence.

Thus, while Kant’s empirical realism still receives scholarly attention, especially in historical and Kantian studies, it is no longer central to mainstream philosophical inquiry today. Analytic philosophy’s focus on language, science, and logic has shifted attention away from Kant’s view, though his ideas remain foundational in certain discussions of epistemology and metaphysics."

What this means is that the FSERC of philosophy not longer considers it a primary philosophical position. And this entails, in VA's system, that it is not as objective, period. Perhaps some day it will be, but it is not now. So, now it is less objective than other positions, including scientific realism.

Will VA admit that his own epistemology, his own Bible and the philosophy FSERC are correct in considering empirical realism to be true and objective?

Nah.