/lit/ - Literature

What does hedonism have to do with the state of scientific knowledge?

>>6539482
Realising that as we learn more about the brain that psychological hedonism is true.

>>6539474
Not if you think Heidegger was right (which I do).

>>6539474
The notion of reward is a bit unbecoming. Why do you focus on this one ? The yield = pleasure/suffering in hedonism is always increasing but it gets harder and harder to increase it as our science of biology has just been born, compared to our physics. Nowadays, the best hedonistic life still requires quite a lot of money for instance. If you are in the middle class, it will sucks great time as all you desire comes from a compromised between your time/money invested and the pleasure retrieved. But again, this is what drives the society and there is nothing wrong with this. And to create as always existed : we create scientific models, novels, cures, companies (very trendy today obviously), ads, jobs and so on. Creation going beyond its usefulness for our direct survival has always been here.

The problem with the trivial hedonism, that is to say, with the hedonism without the creation, is that you do no longer have constraints on your pleasures, beyond the constraints of diversity or rather repetitivity if you do not have enough money. In other words, we decrease our sufferings without even thinking about it : it would be reckless for us not to treat our cancer as soon as we discover it.
However, there is no upper bounds to our pleasures. Why would somebody limit his own desires and pleasures (especially nowadays) ?

The point of the creation, the point of its pleasure is that by definition, to create is the most difficult thing in the world since what you are doing has not be done, and worse, you do not know whether it is doable. This is the upper bound for our pleasures, this is why it is good hedonism.

>>6539503


To choose the path of not to create, but equally of not to remain in a trivial state of hedonism where you puke only to eat even more is the most uncharted territory as it goes against your human biology. We are meant for action, for creation, for invention, for adventure. When you refuse the hedonism, the trivial one as well as the creative one, you are in a state of unease, at least at the beginning, but it opens a new path for the humanity.

Perhaps the last path connects to the buddhism in being the most hedonist model on the market.

>>6539474
of course not

Imagine you’re a good looking rich surfer with a model girlfriend and hire a lifestyle photographer to brag about your vacation on web 2.0.
You might be getting adrenalin rush and you’ll never feel as bad as a Pakistani mine worker, but you’re not as a happy with your life as a child with a puppy.
I honestly think growing and learning is what’s cool in life. What’s hard is acquire a good social setting with people with the same interest, and also to get the time you need to develop yourself in the direction you want.

https://youtu.be/uOHDkIxyu2A

>>6539500
What did he think?

>that picture
This is like saying photons are your favorite color.

>>6539526
>actually making lifestyle porn about yourself

This is a level of narcissism I hadn't even considered to be honest.

>>6539526
>that video

if i could choose between being him and killing him I would choose the latter.

proletariat uprising when?

>>6539546
>>6539586

Its all fake as fuck and bought but I would take it in an instant.

Lets be real you can return to normal life at 50+ and get all the "authentic" shit you missed while touring the world fucking models.

>>6539546
If you consider the instagram of any validation hungry pretty people and add a sufficient amount of financial potential, it's basically obvious.

I've read an article that in the last 5 years, due to girls using internet, it's a thing that many average-to-good-looking rich girls (i.e. coming from a rich family) outperform professional models in that they are often more likely hired to represent Channel 5 perfume of fashion stuff. This is because they come with a large bulk of twitter/instagram followers, gathered by Jaden Smith kind of sharing how they live their life, and now if the fashion or whatever companies hire them to represent, they benefit for their sales. They are Kadashian like internet famous more or less average looking girls without skill but high market value (can't remember any name though, apart from Delavigne
https://instagram.com/caradelevingne/
, who comes from a rich family but at least actually has the profession of being a model).

What's also funny is that now clothing companies put their label on dressing room mirrors, because their know girls are furiously taking selfies in shops and are putting the stuff online, which they try on.
You're probably not assume that a website with a female userbase has such a tag:
https://www.pinterest.com/stargazeresj/mirror-mirror/

What the fuck even is Hedonism? Do you think there is anyone who doesn't ultimately do the things they do because it's pleasurable for them?

>>6539592
Seems like a waste of money to me tbh. As far as degenerate hedonism goes, a nice sedentary villa life with servants and a rotation of escorts seems much better to me. In Tuscany or something, not filthy California.

>>6539636
Depends how much money you are working with.

Traveling is fairly amazing. But if I had a shit ton of money I know my speed would be somewhere near the water, in a nice old house and like 4 gf/wives

>>6539632
Your theory is called psychological hedonism.

>>6539606
That's interesting as fuck actually, where do you get to know more about this kind of contemporary marketing?

>>6539642
>4 wives

As-salamu alaykum, brother.

>>6539606
>Delavigne
>Cara Delevingne Don't worry, be happy ❤️ Embrace your weirdness 💥 STOP LABELLING, START LIVING


NEXT

>>6539606
Cara looks interesting enough to be a legitimate model though. Alexis Ren is sunscreen commercial tier.

>>6539539
roygbiv does not exist. They are made up by the human eye. roygbiv begins and ends within the eyes of the creatures on this planet. They are simply an animal made differentiation to frequency. You don't even see the color of something, you see the colors that it is not. What is residual, what is reflected.

And to further reply to your plebeian statement, yes, photons are your favorite fucking color because photons make up light. Therefore, fuck you.

This is why Aristotelian wannabes need to die.

>>6539687
You just can't into deep philosophy

https://youtu.be/VN2TUiFHR4c

>>6539526
>this girl is younger than me

christ

>>6539764
neither of them is 20.
but neither of them have read your favorite book either.

>>6539492
>[citation fucking needed]

>>6539474
Are you 14 by any chance? Every scientist I've ever met lives a life that is the opposite of hedonism.

>>6539802
They seek everything unpleasurable? Not OP, but I think you might want to change your wording.

>roygbiv does not exist. They are made up by the human eye. roybgiv begins and ends within the eyes of the creatures on this planet. They are simply an animal made differention to frequency.
By this logic nothing we can sense is actually real.

As for the rest fo your comment. Would you say car is your favorite car?

>>6539873
>doesn't even reply to the comment
T-thanks apple
>>6539721

>>6539474

> in our scientifically advanced times?

In

dopamine>serotonin

wellbutrin masterrace reporting in

>>6540994
wellbutrin is ehhh

its definitely helped, but it's not the be all end all

>>6540994
just do heroin

>>6539783
you're an idiot

>>6539802
My dad is an oncologist who does both clinical work and research, and he is about as austere as a monk. I don't know why OP thinks hedonism and science are in anyway related.

>>6541563
Nice Op; you sure got him.

>>6539474
>enjoy

aren't serotonin and dopamine literally "enjoyment" itself? do you "enjoy" "enjoyment"?

>>6539783
You don't think people do things to reap the brain reward?

>>6539474
what if you don't think happiness is objectively the best thing to try and achieve.

>>6542126
It seems to me "science" rejects seeking short term "brain rewards" as a lifestyle since we eventually acclimate to whatever it is that's rewarding us.

Here's my citation. Do you have one for your argument?

http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2013/10/how-to-build-a-happier-brain/280752/

" Objectivity is the world imposing a rule over human behaviors.
Subjectivity is how man copes, adapts, and when sheltered 'retards' escape superior-inferior in relation to an ideal.

Morality is a human construct.

Morality, detached from past/nature, projected as idea(l).

Morality refers to a behavior that increases survival potential.

It is not magical, nor is it irrelevant.

The projected ideal is immortality....survival is a towards that....morality, like many other words referring to human behavior, like love, value, hate, envy, and so on, are survival tools.

Defining them is connecting them to the world.

Value judgments refer to an idea(l), a goal, an object/objective, which gives particular behaviors value by increasing the attainment of the idea(l), or the approach towards it, because no idea(l) is ever attained.

I value human nobility, human intelligence, and so I value all behaviors that preserve and increase it.

Some hedonist may value happiness, or pleasure, and so will have a different standard of evaluating.

The idea(l) determines what is superior/inferior, within the particular environment.

When the environment is a human contrivance the human idea(l)s determine what is superior-inferior within it...in nature there is no conscious Being controlling and shaping the environment according to a telos, an idea(l) and so this natural world is the objective world; indifferent, fluctuating, unconscious, uncaring...(inter)active.

Within it beauty, intelligence, strength, is objectively determined.

The moral nihilist wants us to just stop competing over who is more right...

Peace on earth.

We can all be equally "right" in our own universe, our own subjectivity...no objective world to make us wrong, weak, ignorant, pathetic, stupid, ugly....

We can all live in our own subjectivity, our own bubble world, because no objective world is out there to disturb us.

No need for philosophy...it's a joke.

No objective world means we simply decide what is right and live it.

The method is to find a flaw, because all human conceptions are imperfect, and exploit it to insinuate that all is flawed and so nothing is superior...and then this hedonist can go back to being a comfortably numb nothing.

For him, no God also means no world, no objectivity.

Nothing to make him hurt, and to force him to adjust.

Nothing to cause him shame, or to make him want to be better in relation to."

>>6542203
>No need for philosophy...it's a joke.
That's a strange thing to say after making a huge post full of philosophical statements.

>>6542203
this is actually a contender for the stupidest post i've ever seen on 4chan. well done.

>>6542460
When you google parts of it you get a Facebook for Aryans. Muy kek.

>>6542128
>what if you don't think happiness is objectively the best thing to try and achieve.
I think that this happiness is nothing but pleasure. But everything gives pleasure or pain, and everybody seeks pleasure

>>6542511
Seeking pleasure is like chasing shadows. Humans evolved to feel pleasure from certain things for a reason. If you acknowledge that, you should no longer be motivated by pleasure, because you're in tune with the true purpose on a higher level.

>>6539474
While this image is true, the actual mixture of emotions that come from different balances in chemicals is way to complicated to make it seem like you feel exactly the same ever time serotonin is in your brain.

>>6542547
>because you're in tune with the true purpose on a higher level.
which gives you pleasure just like before

happiness is not pleasure you tardknobs

>>6539526
With this video I've officially made it my goal to become this wealthy, and then give it all away.

this shit is like spring breakers, but not meta or ironic.

>b-but science is wrong because this old philosopher said so!!
Never change, /lit/, you spastics.

>>6539474
so if you have a button wired to your brain that triguers your instant pleasure chemicals, you would be all day long pushing that button?

>>6542773
And smiles are not laughter.
Safety is not contentment
Socrates is not Plato

But they're all very related

>>6542801
who said that?

damn science is becoming a religion.

>>6542818
Heidegger and Aristotle posting faggots.

>>6542822
I dont see anyone claiming or implying that "science is wrong".

>>6542825
See
>>6539500
>>6542773

>>6542802
every animal would

>>6542831
did science prove that " hedonism the only sensible outlook in our scientifically advanced times?" and that happiness=pleasure?

>>6542835
and would you?

>>6542836
Happiness can only be achieved with the right chemical balance

>>6542848
happiness is not a sensation, that would be pleasure

>>6542869
Happiness is an emotion, those come from the brain too.

>>6539474
Human minds/bodies (and the world that surrounds them) are not designed to experience pleasure continuously. Dopamine and serotonin downregulation/desentisation will make sure you don't. It is known that humans have relatively stable serotonin/dompamine levels throughout life, regardless of circumstance. After any majot event equilibrium is restored shortly after, we adjust. To chase pleasure/happiness is moot, it would require great ignorance to believe in such idiocy. It is removed from reality. If we manage to bypass neurochemistry artificially (currently impossible, if you break the equilibrium you're just borrowing and will have to pay back later. eg antidepressants reduce your ability to experience happiness in the long term), the world will take care of it. A constant state of happiness is biologically ineffective, life is a constant battle against environment. If we become ineffective complacent vegetables we'll lose the battle and lose whatever permitted this state. A child's ideology.

>>6542984
>>6542984
>>6539474
Also I find it amusing how you allude to science as an authority (as if it's some religion) while blatantly ignoring and contradicting the most basic scientific principles and knowledge on the matter.

>>6542197

> citation
> The Atlantic

That is not a peer-reviewed journal.

>>6542796
>With this video I've officially made it my goal to become this wealthy, and then give it all away.
I don't understand the point of this plan.

>>6542881
no, happiness is a spook.

>>6542765
Nope. Pleasure is counteractive to equilibrium.

On what grounds do you claim happiness and/or pleasure to be desirable

>>6545267
equilibrium meaning just being alive? Seeking a return to a state where you're at low states of distress/pleasure?
If you give people choices to get what they want, or go make themselves miserable, I don't think they openly choose miserable. They chase highs thinking its the near future that matters most, and its only when they live long enough that they regret not making choices to support a higher standard of living over a greater period of time.
In other words, I guess the point is to try to score the highest on your emotional meters for the longest in order to say you're winning.

But, say you lived for only one day. You don't even have the time to contemplate how much time you have and you have no knowledge to chew that thought. You're just a feel machine.

I wonder. Maybe that never changed. Maybe we're all still the feel machine we always were and knowledge, thoughts we have, the behaviors we do just keep feeding into the same machine for the same responses for that set period of time.
And all that differs now is the memories we have, that tell us we are not the mayfly with a day to live.

>>6539721
>metal is my favourite car
>sound is my favourite music
>data is my favourite video game
You are a complete mouthbreathing retard trying way too hard to seem deep and intelligent. Please stop. You may not feel any shame but it's embarrassing for everyone else.

>>6539546
frank yang has been doing a self-aware conceptual version of it for years

>>6542998
Isn't the idea that the brain builds up tolerance for chemicals (including seratonin/dopamine) universally accepted at this point?

>>6547093
Equilibrium meaning equilibrium. Chemical balance. Peace.

>>6547289
It is.

>>6539586
Shame on you anon, Chinese revolt was a fucking peasant revolution

>>6539526
If I had all that money I would probably have enough room to grow a lot of different pepper species hydroponically indoors.

>>6547588
I know that, anon. When I make a post about Heidegger with the attached picture of a cute girl it doesn't mean I think Heidegger is a girl.

>>6547243

Actually the only reason those statements and the photon statement sound stupid is because they are too general.

For example if you specified that "sound that vibrates in frequencies X in a sequence of Y is my favorite music" it would start to make more sense. It's just a question of how exactly you describe it.

>>6539873
>By this logic nothing we can sense is actually real.

This is correct, or more specifically we have no way of determining whether it is real or not.

The person you're replying to is incredibly proud of what they retained from their primary school physics classes they attended. It's always good to be proud of oneself, someone must be.

>>6540994
>not being glorious zoloft+wellbutrin masterrace
just kidding I want to fucking kill myself

>>6539474
Na it's not. Not the only sensible outlook and not a sensible outlook.

>>6547764
name some superior ones

>>6539503
Real hedonism teaches us that the human mind can be manipulated into enjoying nearly anything.

People who think that only things worth money bring happiness, or that money is required to sufficiently distract oneself from suffering enough to enjoy pleasure adequately have been traumatized by modern societal training.

>>6547781
for starters, what you just asked. the notion that there can be ideas that are superior in terms of their truth, and not just in terms of how they give you pleasure.

>>6548014
how does truth have inherent value?

>>6548028
why would you ever ask a question if it didn't

>>6548042
Because knowing how things are increases my power over them so that I may manipulate them in order to serve my own purposes, of course. Truth is a tool.

>>6539474
Rationality is a spook.

>>6542547
>Seeking pleasure is like chasing shadows.
No.

>Humans evolved to feel pleasure from certain things for a reason. If you acknowledge that, you should no longer be motivated by pleasure, because you're in tune with the true purpose on a higher level.
No. Knowing why we feel pleasure does not change the fact that we feel pleasure.

>>6542869
lol happiness, although a feeling and not a sensation, is still pleasure.

>>6542984
>Human minds/bodies (and the world that surrounds them) are not designed to experience pleasure continuously. Dopamine and serotonin downregulation/desentisation will make sure you don't. It is known that humans have relatively stable serotonin/dompamine levels throughout life, regardless of circumstance. After any majot event equilibrium is restored shortly after, we adjust.
[citation needed]

>To chase pleasure/happiness is moot, it would require great ignorance to believe in such idiocy. It is removed from reality. If we manage to bypass neurochemistry artificially (currently impossible, if you break the equilibrium you're just borrowing and will have to pay back later. eg antidepressants reduce your ability to experience happiness in the long term), the world will take care of it. A constant state of happiness is biologically ineffective, life is a constant battle against environment. If we become ineffective complacent vegetables we'll lose the battle and lose whatever permitted this state. A child's ideology.
Your argument is a web of ad hominems and appeals to nature.
>>>/sci/

>>6547289
[citation needed]

>>6548071
>Knowing why we feel pleasure does not change the fact that we feel pleasure.
Unless pleasure is a placebo and knowledge of reality ruins the effect.

>>6548005
>have been traumatized by modern societal training.

I think that it is more natural and then gradually end up in the position>>6548005
>Real hedonism teaches us that the human mind can be manipulated into enjoying nearly anything.

such as the old who enjoy little things, as they say.

>>6548071
>No. Knowing why we feel pleasure does not change the fact that we feel pleasure.
not if we adopt of doctrine of resentment of some pleasures, generally to favorize other pleasures.

>>6548071

>[citation needed]

How about the most obvious fact that heroin users need to up their dosage to get the same high due to the brain building up tolerance.

>>6548071
if happiness was pleasure then why are there two different fucking words. pleasure is a sensation caused by chemicals. happiness is an abstract concept of fulfillment, used to express much more than a "pleasurable" feeling

>>6548078
lol but it doesn't, unless you're one of those religious edgelords who needs happiness to be supernatural.

>>6548086
Yes, but if you didn't adopt that doctrine, you would feel pleasure the same way... if you don't remind yourself that it is meaningless.

>>6548071
>Your argument is a web of appeals to nature.
Is nature not appealing?

>this whole thread

>>6548094

Pleasure has a temporary connotation, happiness has a longer lasting one. A happy life is a life filled with pleasurable moments. It's the same thing on a larger time scale.

>>6548093
How about a fact that doesn't look like an exception?

>>6548094
>if happiness was pleasure then why are there two different fucking words.
If humidity were wetness why are there two different words?

>pleasure is a sensation caused by chemicals. happiness is an abstract concept of fulfillment
Happiness is more of an emotion than a feeling, and pleasure leads to happiness.

>used to express much more than a "pleasurable" feeling
ayy lmao
>>>/x/
What is happiness, more than a pleasurable emotion?

>>6548109
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_nature
You are assuring that constant pleasure is biologically ineffective and will not make you reproduce or something like that, and that therefore chasing pleasure is bad and idiotic.

>>6548109
I'll admit I'm reading this completely out of context (I just read this post and the one it's responding too), but this is the most embarrassingly tryhard, "lolI'msoDEEPtho," absolutely nonsensical, worthless-response-parading-as-unique-insight thing I've encountered today.

And we're on 4chan, dude.

>>6548115
fulfillment is not just a larger quantity of pleasure. Who is more happy? Someone who spends the first twenty years of their early childhood in a constant state of their life partying, having fun and in a constant state of pleasure and then spends the rest of his life miserably, dying friendless and alone? Or someone who had a miserable childhood and young adulthood, but spends the last twenty years of their life happy and fulfilled, surrounded by loving friends and family? according to you they're exactly the same.

>>6539474
Hedonism necessarily causes pleasure in its practitioners.
Pleasure necessarily causes one's perception of time to speed slightly.

If my goal is to experience the longest life I possibly can, I would conclude that hedonism is not for me. In order to stretch my perception as long as possible, I would aim for boredom, verging on light misery.

>>6548127

I see you extrapolated some crazy shit from my sentence "A happy life is a life filled with pleasurable moments"

Obviously if I was going to evaluate whether someone's life is happy at any given moment I would look at what they're doing at the moment, not their past or future, and I would look at both how many pleasurable moments they're having and how many displeasurable moments they're having and look at things in the background that produce constant displeasure such as stress or anxiety.

>>6548127
>Who is more happy? Someone who spends the first twenty years of their early childhood in a constant state of their life partying, having fun and in a constant state of pleasure and then spends the rest of his life miserably, dying friendless and alone? Or someone who had a miserable childhood and young adulthood, but spends the last twenty years of their life happy and fulfilled, surrounded by loving friends and family?
This dichotomy is terrible. The former person was happier during the first period and the latter person was happier during the second one.

>>6548131
>If my goal is to experience the longest life I possibly can, I would conclude that hedonism is not for me. In order to stretch my perception as long as possible, I would aim for boredom, verging on light misery.
Also, sleep very little. Normal people spend a third of their lives sleeping.

>>6539474
Since science has taught us that our psychologies are reliant on more than just pleasure triggers for happiness, then so simple a hedonism as "serotonin and dopamine" would be a terrible way to achieve happiness.

>>6548192

Describe happiness outside the context of feeling pleasure

>>6548138
>>6548140
this is why there's a difference between pleasure and happiness. you can't evaluate fulfillment. you can't say whether someone has lived a happy life or not. you're incapable, you admitted it yourself. you can only look at a specific moment and say whether they're in a state of pleasure or not. and thats why we have different terms for happiness and pleasure- the uses of the words are different, they are not synonymous.

>>6548201

>you can't evaluate fulfillment

But I could, theoretically, using the same tools I mentioned when evaluating someone's life earlier, I'd just have to follow that person around their whole life.

In fact I could probably evaluate it better than the person themselves because human long-term memory is kind of terrible and for example a person who has lived 40 happy years, but is living one shitty year now might think his life has always been worse than it has really been due to their brain currently being in a depressed state.

>>6548198
"Happiness" has actually been defined in three ways by scientists:
>The feeling of a good or positive emotion
>"Subjective well-being", or the personal satisfaction in life and the idea that life in this moment is good
>Personal satisfaction with life, happiness brought from the idea that life itself is worth living

The three overlap of course, because psychology isn't something that you can expect to become clean-cut and perfect yet, but slowly science is coming around to the idea of actually studying and quantifying positive well-being

>>6547289
>>6548192
>>6548198
>>6548115
>>6539474

>muh we are just atoms floating around.
>muh human beings are just biochemical reactions.

>>6539482
No one has adequately answered this question in a way that didn't make OP loom like an idiot

>>6548277

Great argument m8

There is a course on happyness on edx. Basically happiness is related to the richness of social relationships and how useful you feel you are to your family and community.

>>6548465

All makes sense nao

>>6548465
>There is a course on happyness on edx. Basically happiness is related to the richness of social relationships and how useful you feel you are to your family and community.
normie go away

only the chosens by god are able to endure the solitute

>>6539546
>>6539586
>>6539764
>>6542796
>>6547672
Why do you guys all get jealous and salty because of this video? Yeah the guy is being a dick about showing it off, but by responding with jealousy to another's affluence you're just giving them power over you.

it's a sensible outlook if you want to be a dumbass who fails at life while smart motherfuckers delude themselves into working hard as fuck to dominate you economically and politically

enjoy life as neo-trailer trash

>>6548293
>arguments for people that reduce human existence to "reap the brain reward".

They don't need no arguments, they need to drop the fedoras, and a long knowledge journey.

>>6548489
I hate him without being jealous, actually. I don't want to have it, but I don't want him to have it either.

Also, it's not the affluence I have a problem with but the lifestyle.

>>6548557
that neo-liberal postmodern lifestyle..

>>6539526
how can he afford to do all that?

seems like he wants the appreciation of others more than anything else. literally instagram: the lifestyle.

>>6548532
i'm assuming you're a smart motherfucker who works hard. what have you accomplished recently?

>>6548611
His family is either that rich or he rented a lot of this stuff like rappers do for their videos.

>>6548534

Can you say something substantive in your next post that people can respond to, that would be great.

>>6548612
Not the same poster, but he could be just be a self-hating fuck, as I am, and hold that opinion. Although I could be projecting.

>>6548534
And you need to drop the fedora meme. An outlook being common or "trendy" among your demographic shouldn't automatically earn your contempt. But every fucking board on this Laotian tapistry imageboard has to be full of contrarians.

>>6548639
is clear that I'm critiquing those assuming only the "scientific" version of life/happiness.

Let me use an analogy , if you go to a museum to watch a famous sword, you don't think about it as "a bunch of atoms put together" (or maybe you do w/e), but is there because it is part of history, and maybe is a symbol of whatever. The guide will tell you who carried the sword, who was killed by that sword, if it was imported , if it was a gift, if the style is from here or from there, etc. So the existence of the sword is more than an array of matter.

I want the life deniers on /lit/ to leave. That also includes anti-natalists, spookbusters, buddhists, etc.

>>6548762

And the existence of pleasure is more than just serotonin and dopamine? No shit, the ways in which humans come to release serotonin and dopamine are immeasurable. It may be through simple drugs, it may be through raising a family, it may be through meditation or whatever else. No one ITT disputed any of this so I don't see how your analogy applies.

>>6539474

No.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U88jj6PSD7w&index=3&list=FL4kx-KQpH7UlITkrz33Jyuw

>>6548784
> the ways in which humans come to release serotonin and dopamine.

You can't think about happiness without thinking about dopamine and serotonin can you ?

>>6548878

I'm willing to, when someone gives me examples of such.

>>6548891
I guess this is an ontological problem

If i tell you that an artist is happy because painting and the creative process makes him happy, you gonna tell me "in the end is the dopamine what makes him happy, painting is just a way".

Well no, is the act of painting his happiness.

So I can't give you examples.

>>6548941

Of course I can agree that the act of painting is the source of his happiness. Saying that doesn't exclude neurotransmitters from the process.

I don't see what the problem is, you're just describing the event on a larger scale.

>>6548891
Simple dopamine response won't provide somebody with the sense that life is meaningful or worthwhile, and such a sense is actually integral to happiness in any sense of the word that isn't synonymous with "pleasure".

>>6548954

>sense that life is meaningful or worthwhile

Given that people with depression who feel like life is not worth living have low dopamine levels it's pretty clear dopamine and/or serotonin have something to do with that feeling.

Of course that sensation is probably more complex than just 2 neurotransmitters but it's just a matter of finding all the correct variables.

>>6548985
The study of clinical depression is actually separated from the scientific research that's been done on the concept of happiness. Since depression is a neurochemical disorder, it's not fair to compare it to a simple lack of happiness. Plus, it's entirely possible (and not uncommon) for people to have a lack of satisfaction or sense of meaning in life, while being able to derive a normal dopamine-based pleasure response from normal things. The only real conclusion is that sensory pleasure, which is the readiest thing tied to dopamine and serotonin, isn't the whole picture of emotional well-being. Which makes hedonism an ineffective way to pursue happiness, taken on its own.

>>6548953

It's in the reverse, you are deriving the serotonin and the dopamine from the process by cancelling the process himself, so when you get to the "dopamine and serotonine" there is no world from where it makes sense, they are no significant for us. It's not that serotonin and dopamine makes those moments good... It's that those moments make serotonin and dopamine happen, this is the problem of the nihilism and science

It's like having a dictionary handled to someone, and then he says "it's just full of words, how can you use this?". He will never be capable of using the language in context from just words, it will be meaningless to him.

>>6549004

Our understanding of the brain is quite rudimentary compared to our understanding of most other physical phenomena. Where that lack of satisfaction comes from in people with functioning dopamine, serotonin and norepinephrine levels (I'm assuming these people exist) is a mystery that we should solve. I don't see why after that discovery this mystery biological phenomena can't be tacked on the same group with dopamine and serotonin.

By the way "lack of satisfaction" is clearly a problem but I regret swallowing your premise that having a sense of meaning in life is important.

>>6549018

Are you so dense you actually took the joke in OP's picture seriously and believe that's how we think?

>It's that those moments make serotonin and dopamine happen

The fuck? You're talking to me as if I don't understand this but everyone ITT obviously understands this. I still don't see what your problem is, you just ramble obvious things and then say "this is the problem".

>>6549046

Nigger i just entered the thread you dense fuck, I'm not >>6548941 but I understand he is right

>>6548953
>Saying that doesn't exclude neurotransmitters from the process.

No of course, but you reduce it to neurotransmitters.

>>6549018
Well, the neurochemistry isn't entirely insignificant, because one thing we have found is that dopamine and serotonin are tied somehow to our abilities to derive pleasure from things that should normally give us pleasure. Which is why they're what's focused on in the definition and treatment of depression.

>>6549031
I probably overstepped the boundaries of what we know when I brought up purpose and meaning, because overall what the study and science is focused on is actually the sense that life is good and worth living, which is an easier thing to actually rope in with our concept of happiness. And honestly I've reached about the limits of what I can seriously claim to know, since I'm actually fairly new to the study of this, but there are scientists who've done quite a bit on this, and one place that I've read from on the subject is The How of Happiness, by Sonja Lyubomirsky.

>>6549060

We're just talking about the same things on different levels and none of us are actually disagreeing with each other on a philosophical level. This is just a worthless debate over semantics it seems.

>>6549075

No, it's really simple, if you think that the brain is a self-contained entity which could have *happiness* with only dopamine and serotonine being balanced at certain intervals, then you have certain ontology, and your solution to depression, etc will be related to that. (this is the pure subject view)

If you think that the brain isn't self-contained in what it means to be *normal*, it means that serotonin and dopamine are largely based on a holistic relation with the environment, which will means that balancing dopamine and serotonine won't fix depression by itself, since it will be a ontological error to see dopamine and serotonine thing that give *happiness* by itself. Because what desbalances serotonine and dopamine is based on something not in the subject only. The solution would be related to have a theraphy with SSRI's, both combined

>>6549100

holy fuck i'm drunk lel

>>6549100
And even this dilemma is limited to subjects with the actual disorder, depression, which isn't necessarily related to well-being in the philosophical sense, outside of depression. When depression is considered to be an exception to human brain function, then the minefield becomes even more complex.

>>6549106
But you explained it a lot better than I could.

My English is still limited.

>>6549100

How could I possibly think the brain is a self-contained entity? Every brain is a product of its genes and their interaction with the environment. No one exists in a vacuum.

>>6539526

I'm in a point of my life where when I see those type of videos I can't see myself enjoying those things. Like I would be stomach upset and moody so everything would be shitty. I just can't see them having genuine fun, I imagine them having the same level of fun that I have in this very moment.

>>6548489
I'm not jealous and salty, just wish I had the money to grow a lot of heirloom peppers indoors.

>>6547714
>Actually the only reason those statements and the photon statement sound stupid is because they are too general.
Actually the only reason those statements and the photon statement sound stupid is because they are stupid.
>For example if you specified that "sound that vibrates in frequencies X in a sequence of Y is my favorite music" it would start to make more sense.
It would, but that's not the route you took with your photon example.

>>6549329

That wasn't me but you could take the same route with photons

"Light that has a wavelength of around 380–450 nm is my favorite color"

>>6549388
Right you imbecile, that's not what he said. He said "photons are my favourite colour". Do you see the difference or are you completely dyslexic?

>>6549398

I see the difference in the sentences. I also see that you're either a pedantic twat or intellectually dishonest for not recognizing that what I said was what that person meant.

>>6549417
>what I said was what that person meant.
Except there's a massive difference between "photons" and "Light that has a wavelength of around 380–450 nm is my favorite color". It's not my fault that "that person" whose point you're standing up for is a complete mouthbreather.

"I have never understood asceticism. I have always though it proceeded from lack of sensuousness, lack of vitality. I’ve never realized that there is a form of asceticism consisting in simplifying one’s needs AND seeking to take a more active role in satisfying them -- which is precisely a more developed kind of sensuousness."
Susan Sontag, Reborn: Eary Diaries 1947-1963

>>6549591
>a form of asceticism consisting in simplifying one’s needs AND seeking to take a more active role in satisfying them -- which is precisely a more developed kind of sensuousness
Sounds familiar.