/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.17031480]

Everything you do is done with the intention to maximize your experienced pleasure during your lifetime, while minimizing the probability of death.

Because of this, everyone is fundamentally a hedonist, even the stoic and the ascetic deprive themselves of pleasure because they feel like they will be rewarded with greater pleasure in the future. Similarly, a Christian may deny himself the world, but only because he is promised eternal joy and life in heaven if he does so.

What of suicide? Well, in this case, you are basically conceding that the possibility of future pleasure is nil, so the most pleasurable thing to do would be to end you suffering, this is the only time the pursuit of pleasure outweighs the desire to minimize the possibility of death. So even suicide is hedonistic to an extent.
If everything is hedonistic, then all actions are morally equivalent.

tl;dr everything you do is hedonistic, even suicide and (temporary) denial of pleasure.

[Anonymous No.17031493]

>>17031480
cope

[Anonymous No.17031517]

>>17031480
I want that booba

[Anonymous No.17031531]

>>17031480
Sauce?

[Anonymous No.17031536]

>>17031531
My fwb.

[Anonymous No.17031551]

Glad you've gone from thinking hedonism = fucking ladyboys in Thailand to this

[Anonymous No.17031600]

stop spamming your incoherent edgy sentimentalism please

[Anonymous No.17031699]

>>17031480
If I have lived a meaningful life, and am less happy at the end of it than if I had only gone after happiness, so be it.

Also, a person that finds joy in the joy of others is, in his very nature, the concept of himself, selfless.

Now get your shit together

[Anonymous No.17031882]

>>17031480

[Anonymous No.17031892]

>>17031480
Happiness was never important. The problem is that we don't know what we really want. What makes us happy is not to get what we want. But to dream about it. Happiness is for opportunists. So I think that the only life of deep satisfaction is a life of eternal struggle, especially struggle with oneself. If you want to remain happy, just remain stupid. Authentic masters are never happy; happiness is a category of slaves.

[Anonymous No.17031902]

>>17031480
that isn't true of buddhism

[Anonymous No.17031905]

>>17031480
>even the stoic and the ascetic deprive themselves of pleasure because they feel like they will be rewarded with greater pleasure in the future.
That's not a particularly accurate description; it's to reduce distress in the future

[Anonymous No.17031909]

>>17031902
It is

[Anonymous No.17031917]

>>17031905
reducing distress/pain = pleasure seeking

[Anonymous No.17031921]

>>17031699
meaningful life = moral satisfaction = pleasure seeking

I don't know why I'm going on circles trying to debate this topic itt. it must be an egotistic hangup I'm facing here. I think a lot of people derive their self-worth from feeling superior to others, so anything that challenges that supposition is met with a slew of logical fallacies and arguments.

[Anonymous No.17031936]

>>17031480
Pleasure is always the end goal. Some people seek short term pleasure. Some people will suffer short term pain for long term pleasure. Nobody does anything without the goal of pleasure.

[Anonymous No.17031940]

>>17031917
wrong because pleasure is a form of distress

[Anonymous No.17031946]

>>17031699
>If I have lived a meaningful life, and am less happy at the end of it than if I had only gone after happiness, so be it.
My copeometer & brainletometer just exploded

[Anonymous No.17031950]

>>17031480
>Everything you do is done with the intention to maximize your experienced pleasure during your lifetime, while minimizing the probability of death.
Nope, that's not how biology works.

[Anonymous No.17031984]

>>17031480
I jacked off to Erica Jong books as a teenager. Am i cool?

[Anonymous No.17032010]

>>17031536
post more pics

[Anonymous No.17032027]

>>17031480
1. Post titty
2. If you construe hedonism so broadly that every single action, even altruistic ones, are "hedonic", it seems like the term has lost all meaning at that point. I can argue that someone should care for others and that will make them happier than actions which harm others. We can basically still have every philosophical debate if THIS is the basis. If hedonism is everything then so be it, now we're just arguing over ways to maximize happiness which is basically what ethics has been arguing over for years. This definition of hedonism creates a distinction without a difference. Nothing is changed or solved by this view. There are still lots of debates and discussions to be had.

[Anonymous No.17032048]

>>17031480
>If everything is hedonistic, then all actions are morally equivalent.
There is really nobody who isn't fundamentally just trying to live a good life in a way, which in itself is as depressing as it is life affirming seeing how people act. If it isn't pleasure then it is power or something like that that could be categorized as a means to more pleasure anyway.

[Anonymous No.17032180]

>>17031480
Nice booba

[Anonymous No.17032190]

>Not doing a thing is exactly the same as doing a thing!

[Anonymous No.17032201]

>>17031480
based and blackpilled
everything else is cope desu

[Anonymous No.17032277]

>>17031480
Close but you extended too far in the 2nd paragraph and you can't reduce all action to moral equivalency by the mere connexion of suicide being hedonistic (it isn't). "To an extent" is the key operator here and lays down a better foundation for an argument for moral relativism or moral action predicated by desire -- which is fair. At this point, wish fulfillment, innate hedonism, and blind debauchery are of the same company. It can predict, rationalize, and explain the action, but proposing it to be the sole catalyst is preposterous. Extending the argument further by concluding that all action is morally equivalent is irksome, but perhaps I am misreading what you've said. Careful with morality, it's a powder keg more incendiary than Hitler and trope and wider in scope than the observable universe. Humans don't matter in the context of all of spacetime, but morality is our touchstone and our species' lightning rod when it comes to the decisions of our actions. Which is both bad and good, as you can imagine. Universal morality? Sounds fine in theory. Whose morality? Should we fight over it with bombs and guns? Should we subject others to our utopian sense of morality? You'd think it was black and white. At the end of the day, the loser's morality will always be bad, so long as a majority of people have some Good in them.

[Anonymous No.17032471]

>>17031892
>So men have feverishly conceived a heaven only to find it insipid, and a hell to find it ridiculous --Santayana
But also, From much knowledge only sorrow. I marvel that the correct takes are seldom recognized. Here's lookin' at you, anon

[Anonymous No.17032500]

>>17031699
he's kinda right, even though he's a brainlet. I mean, say you're a genius researcher and you give up marrying the love of your life and a normal family just to become a workaholic and do something meaningful. you'd be less happy. sure, this path would still not be devoid of pleasure, but to a lesser degree than the other that gives you a purely personal one, which is what everyone is after. the moral satisfaction that would come from it is just a way to cope with renouncing greater personal pleasure so yes, it is possible to do something selflessly.

[Anonymous No.17032524]

>>17032500
This is pure cope and false.

>you'd be less happy.
No. your disposition towards various kinds of pleasure are based upon your ability to rationalize which choice will allow you to maximize the amount of pleasure you experience in your lifetime.

[Anonymous No.17032536]

>>17032500
>you'd be less happy.
Says you
>purely personal one, which is what everyone is after.
>everyone
Wrong

[Anonymous No.17032544]

>>17032500
But you wouldn't do those things if they didn't make you happy. OP is basically just fatalism anyway.

[Anonymous No.17032557]

>>17031909
krishnamurti isn't an authority on buddhism dumbass. muh "all eastern philosophy is the same" posters need to read a fucking book

[Anonymous No.17032583]

>>17031480
what if i seek suffering?