[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 90 KB, 373x524, Aristippus.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14207668 No.14207668 [Reply] [Original]

What arguments, if any, are there against Hedonism? When I refer to Hedonism here, I mean the more pop-culture type of hedonists engaging in orgies, feasts, drugs etc.
What reasons are there not to fill life with such pleasures?

>> No.14207676

>>14207668
Sweetness turns sour after a point. Sourness implies rotten.

>> No.14207681

>>14207676
Not a convincing argument. There's enough variety in sexual partners, food, and drugs and such to keep pleasure going throughout a human's entire life.

>> No.14207722

>>14207668
Liveblog names a few

>> No.14207766

>>14207681
Did you check that for yourself?

>>14207668
The mistake is in an essential part of the hedonist worldview. Equating (personal) pleasure with that which we consider the (moral) imperative is essentially arbitrary, just like utilitarianism. One aspect of the material world is picked, we say that it is the best, most important, etc - but why not pick anything else? Hedonism is materialist, which means that there is no transcendental difference between joy and suffering and any other emotion, yet one of these is declared good and an another bad.
I also find it questionable how sustainable hedonism is. Epicureanism is aware of that and strives for something more realistic, yet (at least it seems to me) more transcendant, a state where you don't produce happiness merely out of external circumstances but also from yourself, your thinking and approach to things. In fact, isn't mechanically piling up pleasure as an answer to everything within and without oneself, like an office worker robotically stamping countless bills and contracts with the same stamp, an unnervingly depersonalized, dehumanizing and short-sighted thing to do? Is that really it, everything our life should boil down to? The very fact that you're treating this as a philosophical question suggests that the human mind is capable for something more than hedonism.

>> No.14207880

>>14207668
STDs and unwanted pregnancies, diabetes and heart disease, and drug addiction and withdrawal will all ensure that such a lifestyle of momentary pleasure will result in far more suffering than pleasure, making it rather counterproductive.

>> No.14207919

because our minds and bodies aren't meant for it and you're setting yourself up for a whole lot of suffering later on, both physically and mentally. then you have the greater collective aspect of what happens to a civilization when most people partaking in it are hedonists spiraling into mental and physical illness. things fall apart and you have a hard enough time just holding them together let alone dealing with outside and existential threats

>> No.14208046
File: 11 KB, 250x250, 1568605758564s.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14208046

Helping people is more important than having fun.

>> No.14208328

>>14207766
Redpilled. Not OP, but thanks for the explanation anon!

>> No.14208397

Desire always comes back

>> No.14208424

>>14207668
The danaids in greek mythology resemble the problem of hedonism. The danaids are the 49 women who have to carry water in buckets with wholes. The water streams out of the bucket and then they have to do it all again. The same is true with hedonism. Hedonism cannot fulfill you. For example drugs. Lets say you take a shot of heroine then you feel good. But the feeling is fleeting rapidly then you feel miserably and then you have to take another shot and so on until you die. Hedonism is only in the very short run good. But it back fires rather quickly.

>> No.14208439

>>14207766
You are right from an objective and philosophical standpoint.

But as humans have evolved you can define things that are good and bad. Everything that turned out as a good surviving strategy is now called good and everything that turned out to be a bad surviving strategy is now called bad. That is also the very reason why humans feel joy and pain. It is the feedback if something is good or bad. Obviously there are chemicals such as alcohol, drugs, etc. who are capable of bypassing this mechanism.

>> No.14208467

Because it will eventually degrade your entire being, you body, your mind, your soul. An over abundance of pleasures is probably the worst thing for any person, you are trading long-term happiness for short-term pleasure. This is fine if you plan to kill yourself as soon as your mind is so fried that you can no longer extract any pleasure from your lifestyle, I suppose.

t. Coomed almost everyday since middle school

>> No.14208476

>>14207668
In Brave New World, there is no problem for everyone below Alpha+.

>> No.14208531

>>14207766
>Equating (personal) pleasure with that which we consider the (moral) imperative is essentially arbitrary,
Who cares if it's moral? Pleasure feels good.
>but why not pick anything else?
I suppose a mix of not-feeling-as-good as well as other things being harder to acquire.
>Is that really it, everything our life should boil down to?
Why not? Yeah it feels good to learn new stuff but is it as good as an orgasm or two?

>> No.14208575

>>14208439
>But as humans have evolved you can define things that are good and bad.
Evolutions is teleological?
>Everything that turned out as a good surviving strategy is now called good and everything that turned out to be a bad surviving strategy is now called bad.
The process of evolution equally requires superior traits to survive and inferior traits to die out. If your goal is evolution then why should you claim one good and the other bad?
>That is also the very reason why humans feel joy and pain.
According to who?
>It is the feedback if something is good or bad. Obviously there are chemicals such as alcohol, drugs, etc. who are capable of bypassing this mechanism.
So it's the feedback for objective value judgements except that also it isn't. Okay.

>> No.14208707

>>14207668
there is none. become a pig like me

>> No.14208929

>>14208439
>Everything that turned out as a good surviving strategy is now called good and everything that turned out to be a bad surviving strategy is now called bad
Not really. There is still space for mistakes. Not too long ago a mesoamerican culture thought that waging wars against everyone and everything and ritually ripping enemies' hearts out is good. And they did well. Once the general situation changed, some unexpected force appeared, and suddenly it turned out that their warring has alienated all of their originally neighbouring cultures, which used the opportunity to ally with the new force and to annihilate them.
Being a product of nature/evolution is not a guarantee of survival. We can still be Aztecs.
>Obviously there are chemicals such as alcohol, drugs, etc. who are capable of bypassing this mechanism.
And that is the problem. We didn't evolve for the current state of the world, that is why we have to intervene and control our urges, go to the gym, etc. OP talks about feasts, drugs and orgies, which were not something that we evolved for and not a good surviving strategy.

>>14208531
>Who cares if it's moral? Pleasure feels good.
Who cares if it feels good?
>I suppose a mix of not-feeling-as-good as well as other things being harder to acquire.
I want to feel good because it feels good, wow, what a convincing thought process.
Other things are pretty easy to acquire too. I find it easier to acquire knowledge than drugs and sex. Unhappiness is easier to acquire than happiness.
>Yeah it feels good to learn new stuff but is it as good as an orgasm or two?
Yes, desu
If our lives boiled down to having orgasms, we'd be the most horrible and nonsensical failure of nature - creatures that produced so much culture, knowledge and monuments, in fact misplaced 95% of their collective effort throughout the thousands of years of their existence, which should've just gone to cooming and drugs.
The very fact that you're talking with me is bringing your philosophy into question, because I really doubt you find it very enjoyable, surely shitposting on /int/ and /s4s/ is more fun? Yet, you're here.

>> No.14208941

>>14207668
Pleasure isn’t necessarily or inherently good or evil.

>> No.14209007

>>14208929
>Who cares if it feels good?
Good is good don't be coy. You cant say it doesn't feel "good" whatever we define that to be. You can say it might not have "value" over other things perhaps but I can say nothing has value so just do what feels best.
>I want to feel good because it feels good, wow, what a convincing thought process.
"You should improve yourself?" "Because reason?" "Why is reason good?" "Because reason" .... this goes on and on till an axiom or something underlies, which is arbitrary.
>Yes, desu
Eh there are some sensations better than an orgasm perhaps but they are harder to achieve and to maximize raw pleasure I think all would be better off orgasming non-stop and that's hard to argue against.
>creatures that produced so much culture, knowledge and monuments,
But who fucking cares? People die eventually and even if they didn't whats the point of building anything if not to feel good no? Is any action really altruistic?

>> No.14209012

>>14207668
The truly happy people are not hedonists

>> No.14209136

Literally only blinded by extreme secularism could you deny that vices are bad for ones soul

>> No.14209172

>>14208467
>coomed almost everyday since middle school
How did you stop?

>> No.14209910

>>14209172
anti cooming patch

>> No.14210629

>>14209007
You must be over 18 to post on this site. You're not even arguing the point anymore.

>> No.14210779

>>14210629
Looks like a concession to me. Thankfully I'll be the bigger man here and accept it.
If you truly think hedonism is such a trivial position to debunk why haven't you done so? Inability, in my opinion.
>>14209136
>argument involving the 'soul'
Not very intellectual.

>> No.14210858
File: 79 KB, 777x656, 1574375658967.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14210858

>>14210779
>Looks like a concession to me
Hah >implying samefag
>Thankfully I'll be the bi-
No. You won't.
>If you truly think hedonism is such a trivial position to debunk why haven't you done so?
If you truly think hedonism is such a trivial position to defend why can't you answer people's arguements honestly? Inability, in my opinion.
>Not very intellectual.
According to whom?

>> No.14210897

>>14207668
All hedonists regret it.

>> No.14210971

>>14207668
Have sex

>> No.14211830

>>14209007
>You cant say it doesn't feel "good" whatever we define that to be.
Sensual good and objective/imperative good are different things. We're talking about the latter, because the former is merely a material fact and not an ethical one.
>You can say it might not have "value" over other things
That's precisely what your materialism leads to.
>but I can say nothing has value so just do what feels best.
If nothing has value, then there is no "so". "So" implies that there's a cause and consequence. Picking "what feels best" is not a necessary consequence of the statement "nothing has value" (unlike a necessary consequence such as a conclusion of a logical syllogism). The "so" conceals an arbitrary and subjective decision which bears no value outside of your own mind.
The hedonists' continual and thoughtless mixing of these two levels of what "good" can mean and using that inability as an argument is staggering.
>But who fucking cares? People die eventually and even if they didn't whats the point of building anything if not to feel good no? Is any action really altruistic?
Well, you do care, because right now you're arguing with a person on the internet about your philosophical positions, which, much like many other things human beings commonly do, such as creating art, philosophizing, researching useless fields of knowledge, does not bring any direct or significant joy, unlike simply going to a whore or getting shitfaced or watching TV. You're not talking here for your joy, you're doing it for something else, thus not following your own imperative.
Altruism is not related to what I'm talking about. The fact that you immediately jumped to this as something that I'm supposedly defending shows a limited philosophical language. Hedonism isn't even a negation of altruism (hedonistic utilitarianism is a possibility).
>all would be better off orgasming non-stop and that's hard to argue against.
Until everyone's hormonal balance is completely destroyed, orgasms become dull and humanity dies out because there is no incentive to do anything productive, because all pleasure is right here right now all the time, and so making it impossible for any further humans to enjoy that bliss. Is that a good thing too, according to your hedonism?

>>14210779
That's not me and you should seriously fucking kill yourself if you haven't seen any attempts of debunking hedonism in my posts. Your thinking is indeed trivial and apparently cannot differentiate between two senses of a word, so shut the fuck up about inability. I was polite before because I actually do believe in what I'm writing, but you at the drop of a hat just switch to smugness and masturbation ("I'll be the bigger man", lmao), which is probably what your ideas really lie upon. Read some philosophy, you might start thinking a bit more consistently and critically and not basing everything on a desire to be cooler than all those dumb moral people.

>> No.14211848

>>14207919
>because our minds and bodies aren't meant for it and you're setting yourself up for a whole lot of suffering later on
Pretty much this. Hedonistic lifestyles lead to misery.

>> No.14212219

>>14211830
>Sensual good and objective/imperative good are different things.
Is that so? Why is that so and why does that matter? Why should I care that much about ethics were I an indulgent hedonist who's goal is maximum pleasure?
>That's precisely what your materialism leads to.
And even if that's true,why is materialism bad?
>If nothing has value, then there is no "so".
I think this is a bit into semantic territory. It's obvious what I meant.
>Well, you do care, because right now you're arguing with a person on the internet about your philosophical positions...
A fair point. I don't have a full response to this. Perhaps Hedonists find some value in spreading the ideas of Hedonism, or having them disproved so they can pursue more "right" outlooks on life. Maybe by the values of Hedonism spreading there's more feasts/orgies in the future, which benefits the hedonists with a bit of forethought.
>Until everyone's hormonal balance is completely destroyed, orgasms become dull and humanity dies out because there is no incentive to do anything productive, because all pleasure is right here right now all the time, and so making it impossible for any further humans to enjoy that bliss.
Who cares about future humans? That's more a utilitarian thing I'd think.
As for hormonal balance, Maybe research some ways to fix the human brain, or to put them in VR orgasm simulations. Do some science inbetween hedonist activities.

>That's not me...
If it's not you why are you so mad? I'm not saying it's you, but rather why do you care so much to be this upset?
When people post garbage they get garbage back. Play dumb games win dumb prizes. I'm sorry my post made you seethe so hard by proxy I guess?
>Read some philosophy, you might start thinking a bit more consistently and critically and not basing everything on a desire to be cooler than all those dumb moral people.
What the fuck are you even talking about? Justify why morals matter against hedonism or point to literature that does.

>> No.14212575

>>14207668
Hot take: almost everything we do is guided by hedonism. Why would anti-hedonists be in this thread if not for their pleasure of shitposting at /lit/? Why are they wasting their time browsing 4chan?