I disagree with your assessment that time does not rack up. How else are we to live?

It might be helpful to realize that there are more ways of conceiving of pleasure than along a spectrum or number line or something akin to a subjective experience that can fade or grow more powerful. — Moliere

I agree, I'm not a bare hedonist.

Just some thoughts:

The accumulation of money might make someone happy, thereby granting an example of quantitative happiness.

I agree that there isn't some kind of measurement device, a "Utilometer 2000", that racks up happys.

But you said that

Pleasure does not 'rack up' -- it is good insofar as it is pleasant, which is precisely insofar as it's being experienced, now. We live on a razor's edge in the moment and always act in that moment, not across a span of time where we have to 'accumulate' the best results. — The Great Whatever

So one could instead focus on maximizing the time spent experiencing such pleasures.

I'm not entirely sure, to be honest with you. I couldn't say.

From my experiences on both the old and the new PF (and in life in general it seems), many arguments become heated and persist simply because neither side is willing to endorse the Principle of Charity; they will hide behind this wall of "nah-nah you can't touch me here!" or try to snipe someone's argument apart by aiming at a weakness that amounts little more to moving the goalposts. This leads to an attrition that ends up spiraling out of control.

If you are on PF or any other debate forum just to argue for the sake of arguing, you are detracting from the overall quality of the forum(s).

I cannot see how this could possible be enforced (since someone could easily just feign ignorance on the matter), but we could see if we at least put up a reminder in the text box before typing that says "remember the Principle of Charity...good luck, have fun." It might help keep the amount of silly tug-of-wars to a minimum.

Obviously not from a strictly logical standpoint, but let's be charitable, shall we, and take the phenomenological approach here, and realize that if something is good then that something is something that we want to be maximized.

How does it not follow?! If something is good, then why on earth would it not be the case that it should be maximized?

What do you think are the primary reason why a fascist/totalitarian government is bad?

A dictator has complete control, so if they go off the deep end, everyone else and their mothers are screwed.

Also, a dictator cannot possibly do everything by him/herself, so they need a bureaucracy to help them out. In which case, this mitigates the advantage of having a powerful leader.

Independent thinkers will always be ostracized within fascist communities.

Fascism works in the short term, when people are scared or fed up with something. It thrives on destructive emotions. I believe Mussolini himself said war should be a fundamental part of the fascist state.

But after a while, people are going to get tired. The state will lose its momentum, and then will have to crack down on its citizens using violence and coercion.

The idea that physical reality just isn't enough to ever satisfy the demands of the mind is, in a word, bullshit. Yes, Virginia, some literary (and philosophical) movements contain multitudes of bullshit. One needs to clean it off the bottom of one's boots before one comes into the kitchen.

I'm not saying mind and physical reality is the same thing. It's just the idea that "Oh Gawd, my huge mind (It's so HUGE, a la Monty Python) just can't be satisfied by what little there is here in this dreary physical world!!!" is unadulterated romantic bullshit. — Bitter Crank

I just want to make sure there isn't a misunderstanding, I think Weltschermz happens to everyone at varying degrees, not just me or certain individuals.

From my perspective, every action we take is a distraction. Without distraction, we inevitably fall into boredom, which feels like the time you were home sick from school and didn't know what to do, and it was cold, gray, and dreary outside. Without distractions, the world becomes a bit heavy to look upon.

I'm not a depressive individual; oftentimes I am enjoying myself, but when it's all said and done, this enjoyment rests upon very shaky architecture that easily comes crashing down either with the presence of pain or the inevitable lack of interest for a topic we experience that leads to boredom.

I'm not saying we can't enjoy life, but to enjoy life is to exist upon the peak of a parabola, oftentimes difficult to obtain and easy to lose. It's so delicate that is leads me to believe that it is unnatural. The meaninglessness behind all of this is what leads to my Weltschmerz, I think, because it essentially makes all of us little rats in a rat race.

I don't think the point of ethics is to provide a self-help guide for specific ways you should live your life. — The Great Whatever

To be a hedonist means to believe that pleasure and pain are the only good/bad (respectively). So it makes sense that a hedonist would want to maximize pleasure and minimize pain.

You said:

A correction here: the kind of hedonism I defend doesn't say that the maximization of pleasure or the minimization of pain are good, because this assumes that pain and pleasure can be quantified, and usually that they are are fungible over time or between persons, which they are not. — The Great Whatever

And then:

I don't think the point of ethics is to provide a self-help guide for specific ways you should live your life. The classical hedonists made very different life choices and had very different personalities, if the doxography can be believed. — The Great Whatever

Which strikes me as dodging the question.

I don't think age has much of anything to do with this. Weltschmerz could easily come about by realizing that this is the way it is going to be for. the. rest. of. your. life.

So...noncognitivism?

How else does a strict hedonist go about their lives except by maximizing pleasure and minimizing pain?

Not entirely sure what you are suggesting. Perhaps metalinguistic nominalism?

I agree, I find Trope Theory to be lacking in explaining the similarity between tropes without the use of universals.

particulars are particulars because they are unique. — Marchesk

I would dispute this. A trope theorist would argue that the attributes that are shared are actually just particulars that are part of a set.

I agree with the false dichotomy assessment. I think Aristotelian metaphysics is a good middle-ground between the two extremes.

If it helps, I'm sympathetic to Aristotle's hylomorphism.

Hmm, It makes more sense that the fundamental substance, matter, can be construed in various forms; just as a log decomposes and changes from a brittle structure to a goopy mess but loses none of its matter.

So properties are not like stickers that are applied to an object, properties are the way matter is acting. A yellow pencil does not have the property of yellow, rather, it is acting in such a way that it exemplifies yellow. Maybe universals represent all that is physically possible, that is, all the different forms that matter can be construed. In which case they would exist in the same way the laws of logic exist, out of abstraction. But I don't think there's some kind of mystical inventory that has all these universals floating around somewhere in abstracta, that reeks of pseudoscientific superstitious nonsense.

Also, I dislike the trend in metaphysics that distinguishes objects as entities in themselves. This makes absolutely no sense to me. I suppose this means I am a mereological nihilist.

I need you to understand that I am extremely sympathetic to the perspective of a pessimist; I might as well call myself a pessimist. But my pessimism is rooted in the fact that it is the unfortunate fact that we suffer too much because we accidentally expect too much. We are accidentally narcissistic, and we can't help it. The universe is ill-suited for an self-reflecting ego. If it were possible to extinguish the ego in all its forms, we wouldn't suffer, for what would there be to suffer?

Something I have noticed is oftentimes, the fear of suffering is greater than the actual experience of suffering. This of course doesn't apply to every scenario, which is why you shouldn't just go jump off a canyon thinking you'll be okay.

I think the only kind of pain that actually constitutes as suffering (I think BitterCrank said something along these lines) is any kind of suffering that cannot be redeemed in any way. Terminal illness that leaves a person in a state of misery is one example. But again, remember that the Stoics advocated that as soon as life gets this bad, you are to exit gracefully.

You asked why I don't like dealing with you, and these kind of remarks are one of several reasons. How is that not inflammatory? I'm sure your response to this will be in the same vein, thus betraying a bit about yourself. — schopenhauer1

When I say you are narcissistic, I don't mean it as an insult. I'm trying to argue that you have placed too much value on your opinion on how things "should be". I'm not calling you a pig, I'm saying you are existentially narcissistic.

Well, a blissful state is probably something along the lines of all preferences being satisfied in the way we want them satisfied. This includes meaning-through-pain, if one so chooses. This also, I guess, includes a certain amount of unexpected pain, that one could stop whenever they wanted and restart if it suited them. Of course, this all sounds like wishful thinking because we are talking utopias here. — schopenhauer1

All preferences being satisfied is impossible. To expect this is to set oneself up for failure and disappointment. Understanding this brings about enlightenment (not the supernatural woo kind). Simply peace.

Also, from a Buddhist perspective, if you mitigate desires (and preferences), you mitigate the suffering you feel when you don't get what you want. Wanting something, achieving that thing and getting a quick dopamine hit is really just prolonging the rat race, if you get my drift, since it all just goes back to the striving anyway.

Since we are the recipient of how it manifests, that is why it matters. The universe isn't for us, but we certainly must deal with what happens to us and thus why it matters to us — schopenhauer1

Sure. I agree, we are aliens to an indifferent cosmos.

We can't think ourselves into a purely blissful state where nothing affects us. By definition, if we need to struggle and need some pain for meaning, it is inbuilt. — schopenhauer1

Thus betraying your narcissism.

Have you considered what a purely blissful state actually is? I would argue that a blissful state is not necessarily one in which nothing affects us (although that wouldn't be horrible either).

It doesn't mean we can't enjoy things. I never said that (though you might try to strawman me). — schopenhauer1

Nor did I, though you might try to strawman me.

it is not about a methodology as much as a recognition that there structures of the world that are not good. — schopenhauer1

Not good from a lowly human perspective. The universe is not benevolent nor malevolent, merely indifferent. How this manifests can be malignant, and it also be benign only to the perspective of a person.

I am not sure how much asceticism will actually work (or work for most people) in really getting rid of desire or any contingent pains — schopenhauer1

It doesn't. It merely gives the person the facade that they are away from their pains, as well as a boost to their ego, oftentimes the same ego they claim they are trying to extinguish.

Asceticism doesn't work because it is not natural. You are constantly reminded why you are pursuing the ascetic lifestyle (suffering).

Of course my pessimism comes in with the notion that we must find meaning through struggle, and that we cannot simply be without some source of stimulus or excitation. Existence without any need, desire, goals would simply be enough. However, this is for all intents and purposes an impossibility from the start and incomprehensible as to how that sort of existence even looks like. — schopenhauer1

Well, if you let go of the narcissistic expectation that life was supposed to be perfect, much of the philosophy of pessimism melts away.

I believe it was in the same thread, but I argued that brute hedonism is not a sufficient explanation for our actions. Preference hedonism/desire-satisfaction hedonism is a far more compelling case than regular hedonism.

Sure, in the daily grind of life hedonism more or less makes sense. You eat a cookie because a cookie tastes good. You don't stab yourself because pain feels bad.

However, more extreme cases bring to light not only new problems but also the superficiality of the prior thinking.

Scenario: A woman is raped by a man. For all intensive purposes, the woman feels hardly any pain at all during the act and it fact feels great sensual pleasure; regardless, she does not want to be raped. A hedonist, however, would have to concede that this act was perfectly okay because the woman (and the man for that matter) both feel only pleasure.

Obviously, the act of rape is still causing the woman severe psychological trauma, which I agree would be pain. But the only reason she is feeling psychological trauma is because her preference (to not be raped) is being disregarded.

Now, back to the prior examples. Do you eat a cookie because the cookie tastes good, or do you eat a cookie because you desire the taste of the sweetness of the cookie? Do you abstain from stabbing yourself because it will hurt, or because you desire to not feel pain?

Metaphysics cannot take criticism and when something does not line up with its preconceived notions it is either brushed off or spun in such a manner as to make it magical. It's basically idealistic bullshit institutionalized. (and that is me being nice) — Mayor of Simpleton

What are you conceiving the nature of metaphysics of being? There's the pop-culture New Age metaphysics bullshit, and then there's academic metaphysics, which today does not really include theology (which I find to be quite unnecessary and mostly bullshit).

I understand and agree with you in your assessment that we are insignificant anomalies in a vast, uncaring universe. However, your position is that all the speculation we put forth into the nature of the cosmos (that is not empirical) is bullshit, and I'm not entirely sure why you believe this to be the case. I don't mean to be rude and I say this simply to garner discussion but to me it seems like you are romanticizing our eternal ignorance.

I reject many of the older, "rationalist" metaphysical structures that were far too anthropocentric. But I'm not willing to throw the baby out with the bath water. I don't see why the universe can't have a discernible, underlying structure...in fact, it would be rather odd if it didn't.

It isn't necessary that you exist but you do, and we can be glad for that. — Bitter Crank

Aww thanks BC. (Y)

A computer program might show up on my monitor and display odd shapes of varying colors. Why?, I might ask. Well, the programming of the program.

Similarly, is there a programming behind the universe that makes it operate the way it does? Because it sure is peculiar that the universe operates in a strict, peculiar fashion.

I might have a problem with P1.

P1 If any gratuitous suffering is preventable and known , it is wrong to allow said gratuitous suffering. — Soylent

What about the trolley problem? Surely allowing the trolley to kill five people would result in gratuitously more suffering than if you flipped the switch and killed one person. And yet many people, including myself, would find this immoral.

Well... I'd say because of the predicating factors that have lead to to things being as they currently are and since these factors have been set into 'motion' they cannot be 'unset' into motion. Much like you cannot really 'unring' a bell once it has been rung. — Mayor of Simpleton

An interesting idea, MoS, but I'm not sure if a metaphor is sufficient to answer the problem here.

How did these factors get set into motion, and what set them into motion?

Do you mean 'why' as in having a purpose for doing what it does... as if there is a universal sort of must be a necessity to it all? — Mayor of Simpleton

Yes. Why is it that eyes let us see and not let us fly? Why does a volcano erupt and not turn into a field of daffodils?

Why should a regress that is infinite be impossible? — Mayor of Simpleton

I was not aware that there were instances that an infinite regress is possible.

The electricity that powers the lightbulb next to me had to come from somewhere. It came from the powerline. But if it's powerlines all the way down, then there is no source of power at all.

Why should determining factors have a limit placed upon them other than the limits of our personal ability to deal with them? — Mayor of Simpleton

Do you mean something along the lines of that, since we are the products of evolution, we are limited in our cognitive abilities?

Why hold determining factor hostage to our personal limitations of perspective and understanding?

The only reason for a metaphysical "why" as far as I can tell is when we are personally dissatisfied with our place in the universe and wish to make the universe dance according to our wishes. The only reason for a metaphysical "why" being at all necessary is when our ego take the high ground and we wish to think the universe is here and is as it is simply because of ourselves. That's why I tend to call it MEphysics. It is nothing more that an egotistical delusion of megalomania. — Mayor of Simpleton

I agree that much of metaphysics seems very anthropocentric.

But to be dissatisfied with an answer is the spark of curiosity that leads to great discoveries. If we had all just given up because we didn't think it was possible to get to the moon, we wouldn't have gotten to the moon.

Curiosity seems to stem directly from our desire to know how we fit into this world.

God is not an answer in any why shape or form. To simply make an appeal to an 'unknowable and invisible product' being sold as the causal agent of anything is not an answer. It changes nothing in terms of understanding, but rather makes a tactical dodging of the issue. — Mayor of Simpleton

Pretty much agree.

Why should pessimism enter the fray at all? — Mayor of Simpleton

IT DOESN'T. HERE ME LOUD AND CLEAR, LET'S KEEP THIS THREAD FREE OF IT.

What I mean to say is that there are plenty of other threads dedicated specifically to pessimism, and I wanted to make sure nobody jumped on board to debate the nature of a pessimistic Will when this isn't really the focus of this topic.

Drop the beat. 8-)

Me gusta.

From the OP: "If there is an interest to discuss the soundness of the premises, I can create a spinoff thread elsewhere." — Postmodern Beatnik

Right. I was being a trigger happy, argumentative ass.

The dictatorship of North Korea seems to be in line with fascism. By breaking ranks with more "traditional" Marxism, Juche ended up with a personality cult and extreme nationalism...which is suspiciously similar to the fascism of the Europeans during the former half of the twentieth century.

This is a case where suffering is just suffering. There isn't even a story after-the-fact that could make it such that the condition made the sufferer's life more fulfilling. Here is an example of suffering just being suffering. — schopenhauer1

From what you wrote, this means suffering just beings suffering requires it to have no additional purpose behind it. Meaning cannot be derived from it.

Now I am not denying that there are certainly cases of suffering (usually extreme) that would add no value or meaning to a person's life, but I struggle to understand how the person is "burdened" with this everyday.

Something about making suffering meaningful makes it easier to cope with.

My mistake. Guess I'm just trigger happy for an argument.

I don't think free range husbandry followed by the swift killing of animals would constitute gratuitous suffering. — Michael

I understand this to mean that you believe that killing an animal does not violate morality. (pointing out the difference between suffering and gratuitous suffering instead of saying killing animals is wrong)

Why is it okay to kill an animal but not a human?

I am curious to know why this is the case.

If you notice, I don't like having dialogues with you, so for my happiness I am not replying. — schopenhauer1

Kinda shot yourself in the foot there, didn't ya?

Wasn't included in the memo but I would like to add that meaning is a part of what makes something good. Meaning, pleasure, and satisfied preferences bundled into one would be what I would consider to be good.

Excellent atmospheric music.