Life as Stockholm syndrome?

If a person has a high degree of life satisfaction, then his life must be good. — TheHedoMinimalist

Not!

If a person has a high degree of dissatisfaction with his life then his life must be bad. — TheHedoMinimalist

Not!

Not! In so many ways! And so much slippage in the words and their usages, and even in the words not used, like "happiness," or not until the end, "better."

There's an interesting idea in there somewhere; care to try to find it?

Perhaps in your "satisfactionism." Can you offer a definition of satisfaction beyond its being just what someone says? Its quiddities: Is it? Can satisfactionism be? What is it? Mental health? psychosis/neurosis? Compensation/rationalization? What kind of a thing is it? A variety of self-apologetics?

What might be sound reasons for accepting a judgment of satisfaction? Should we accept it from a slave? And does that mandate we not question his state or his master? And from the privileged, his "dissatisfaction," does his privilege mean we should pass his dissatisfaction by without attention?

On the other hand, if the dissatisfied person has the better life, then perhaps a person’s life satisfaction tells little about his quality of life. — TheHedoMinimalist

This seems reasonable.

Much can be said for contentment.

Much can be said against.

There's a common prayer called the serenity prayer. Chock full of wisdom, regardless of it's source.

I think you're right, people will criticise the satisfied if ignorant, immoral or unambitious because it doesn't sit right with them. If they felt this applied to themselves then they would be dissatisfied with the state of their own lives, it is only their opinion about the quality of the lives of others where despite them being satisfied, can consider others to have a low quality of life.

That being said, it can be more complicated because this understanding of evaluating quality of life by satisfaction may encourage short-term hedonistic behaviour without worrying about long-term consequences.

Of course, there a whole lot of philosophical thought which can be used to argue against your view. I tend to care about the individual and being pragmatic even at the expense of others if that's whats wanted. I have my own preferences but I tend to think that its the job of people to live up to their own preferences in the best way they can, that's what I want for others and not for people to think as I do.

I think you misunderstood the intention of my OP. I did not claim that I supported Satisfactionism. This was merely a theory which I have considered. It was also partially inspired by me reading another philosopher named Fred Feldman and his Attitudinal Hedonism theory. My rejection of satisfactionism revolves around the fact that I think certain positive and negative valences(AKA pleasant and unpleasant experiences) have more relevance for evaluating quality of life. I would classify myself more as a hedonist than a satisfactionist.

Can you offer a definition of satisfaction beyond its being just what someone says? — tim wood

Well, life satisfaction appears to be the extent to which you regard your life to be valuable or disvaluable. If you love your life then you are satisfied. If you hate your life then you are dissatisfied. Are you satisfied with this definition?(no pun intended lol).

What might be sound reasons for accepting a judgment of satisfaction? — tim wood

I actually agree that satisfaction may be an arbitrary criteria for evaluating life. I think there is only undeniably sound reasons to try to maximize pleasant experiences and minimize unpleasant experiences in our own life. Although, I’m willing to entertain that there may be more speculative reasons for other value criteria like satisfaction. I might be willing cause myself a little unpleasantness in order to drastically increase my life satisfaction even if the life satisfaction is not instrumentally good for attaining hedonic happiness.

I must point out that I don’t actually support Satisfactionism. I’m kinda surprised that everyone assumed that I did from the OP. This was just meant as a conversation starter to talk about various theories of well being. Satisfactionism was just one theory that I have thought about. I rejected this theory since I think there is relatively speculative reasons to think that life satisfaction is important beyond the hedonic benefits it may bring. It’s worth noting that the life of the slave is actually also bad from a hedonic perspective since he gets severely beaten every day. It’s possible for someone to be satisfied with life despite living a hedonically bad live. I would call that irrational satisfaction with life.

That being said, it can be more complicated because this understanding of evaluating quality of life by satisfaction may encourage short-term hedonistic behaviour without worrying about long-term consequences. — Judaka

I have not mentioned it in the OP but any mature form of Satisfactionism would argue that the duration of the life satisfaction is important in addition to the intensity of life satisfaction. That is to say, you would need to have prolonged satisfaction across your entire life in order to live a good life. Of course, life span might also effect your level of well being in an instrumental way. Living a longer life might allow for a higher or lower periods of satisfaction to periods of dissatisfaction ratio. So, imagine a hypothetical person who satisfied with his life until he’s 30 and then dissatisfied until he’s 50 and then he’s indifferent to life until 60. If he was to live beyond 60, this may positively or negatively affect his well being depending on whether or not he will be satisfied or dissatisfied with his life.

I have my own preferences but I tend to think that its the job of people to live up to their own preferences in the best way they can, that's what I want for others and not for people to think as I do. — Judaka

So, would you accept something resembling a Preference Satisfaction theory of well being? I must note that I regard Preference Satisfaction theory as distinct from Satisfactionism. Satisfactionism is a mental statist theory of well being. This means that a Satisfactionist would claim that everyone would benefit from an Experience Machine life even if it wasn’t desired by the individuals who are forced to plug themselves in. This is because the Experience Machine guarantees life satisfaction since the ignorance about the fact that one is living in a virtual reality universe makes dissatisfaction impossible. The Preference Satisfaction theorist, on the other hand, would claim that the EM life is bad for those who do not desire it prior to being forced to plug in. I would encourage you to look up Experience Machine Thought Experiment if you are confused about what I am talking about.

I see online a one-line definition of Attitudinal Hedonism as, "enjoying the things you get" (as v. "mere satisfaction, getting the things you want"). This is just the intersection of Stoicism and Epicureanism writ modern. Is there more to it than that?

And you might consider happiness - other people have, viz.:.
"So the argument has by a different course reached the same point; but we must try to state this even more clearly. Since there are evidently more than one end, and we choose some of these (e.g. wealth, flutes, and in general instruments) for the sake of something else, clearly not all ends are final ends; but the chief good is evidently something final. Therefore, if there is only one final end, this will be what we are seeking, and if there are more than one, the most final of these will be what we are seeking. Now we call that which is in itself worthy of pursuit more final than that which is worthy of pursuit for the sake of something else, and that which is never desirable for the sake of something else more final than the things that are desirable both in themselves and for the sake of that other thing, and therefore we call final without qualification that which is always desirable in itself and never for the sake of something else.

Now such a thing happiness, above all else, is held to be; for this we choose always for self and never for the sake of something else, but honour, pleasure, reason, and every virtue we choose indeed for themselves (for if nothing resulted from them we should still choose each of them), but we choose them also for the sake of happiness, judging that by means of them we shall be happy. Happiness, on the other hand, no one chooses for the sake of these, nor, in general, for anything other than itself." Nichomachean Ethics

Okay, I had assumed you were advocating for it.

I am sure many people will not be satisfied with just hedonistic pleasures and likewise, many will not be satisfied with a virtual reality.

I'm a bit confused as to what you're specifically talking about. If we're talking about using how satisfied someone was throughout their life as a means to evaluate their life then I find that concept to be meaningless. We cannot evaluate a life's worth, it is purely subjective.

If it is to say "my life is good because I am satisfied" or "I want a good life therefore I will aim to be satisfied" then these are good ideas but over what timeframe is this person focusing? You may be satisfied when you eat a lot but dissatisfied over your weight gain or you may be satisfied in a low paying job now but many years down the track begin to regret.

People, groups, society, culture and whatever else place values on particular attributes and qualities. I don't think these opinions matter until they matter. In other words, the people with those opinions have to matter and that includes yourself. All of this plays into whether one will be satisfied with their lot in life or not.

As I am a nihilist and a pragmatist, I feel compelled to evaluate things from the perspective of someone else's value system. There is no greater goal for people to aspire towards. People never have things sorted out though, they don't even know what they want. Even when they get what they want, they may become bored of it later and will want something new. Just ambition alone means that perhaps one will perpetually dissatisfied with what they've got. However, I interpret being satisfied to mean that your life is being lived in accordance with what you wanted out of it. Representing low internal conflict, knowing yourself and living well. Even if you aren't someone to be admired.

Is there more to it than that? — tim wood

Well, I would like to distinguish Attitudinal Hedonism from Valance Hedonism. Attitudinal Hedonism states that the most important criteria for determining the quality of a life is whether a person is pleased or displeased with the state of affairs of his life, while Valance Hedonism states that the most important criteria is whether a life is overall pleasant or unpleasant. It is possible for someone to be pleased about unpleasant state of affairs. For example, imagine someone who is pleased with his life despite having almost constant chronic pain. An attitudinal hedonist would judge his life to be good while a valence hedonist like myself would judge it to be bad. Attitudinal hedonism or Satisfactionism is about enjoying or being satisfied with what you get in life, while Valence Hedonism is about actually having a pleasant life with little suffering and an abundance of pleasure and joy. Thus, a valence hedonist is not likely to envy the life of the satisfied slave while an attitudinal hedonist might.

Now such a thing happiness, above all else, is held to be; for this we choose always for self and never for the sake of something else, but honour, pleasure, reason, and every virtue we choose indeed for themselves (for if nothing resulted from them we should still choose each of them), but we choose them also for the sake of happiness, judging that by means of them we shall be happy. Happiness, on the other hand, no one chooses for the sake of these, nor, in general, for anything other than itself." — tim wood

So, would you agree with the non-hedonic conception of happiness which Aristotle has proposed?

If a person has a high degree of life satisfaction, then his life must be good. If a person has a high degree of dissatisfaction with his life then his life must be bad. — TheHedoMinimalist

It is very related to the concept of utility in economics:

Within economics, the concept of utility is used to model worth or value. Its usage has evolved significantly over time. The term was introduced initially as a measure of pleasure or satisfaction within the theory of utilitarianism by moral philosophers such as Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill.

The problem is that this kind of views are circular:

Cambridge economist Joan Robinson famously criticized utility for being a circular concept: "Utility is the quality in commodities that makes individuals want to buy them, and the fact that individuals want to buy commodities shows that they have utility"[12]:48

In the phrase, "A high degree of life satisfaction would mean that his life must be good", how is the term "good life" itself defined? Well, obviously, a good life would mean that it has a high degree of life satisfaction.

So, as Joan Robinson pointed out, that kind of views are way too circular to be useful.

I am sure many people will not be satisfied with just hedonistic pleasures and likewise, many will not be satisfied with a virtual reality. — Judaka

The virtual reality life which I was talking about allows you to experience any experience that you want while being unaware that you are living a virtual reality life. That is to say, it forces someone experience mental states of satisfaction towards their virtual life. It’s kinda like a form of brainwashing which disables you from not enjoying or being dissatisfied with your life.

We cannot evaluate a life's worth, it is purely subjective. — Judaka

While I agree that satisfaction might not have the capacity to be an objective criteria for evaluating life, I do think there is at least some objectivity in life evaluation. Consider the following 2 lives; one life contains no unpleasant experiences at all while the other life contains some unpleasant experiences. Would you not say that there is some clear objective advantage that the 1st life has over the 2nd life based on the amount of unpleasant experiences of each life? Of course, the 2nd life might also have some more speculative advantages in other questionably objective criteria but it seems unquestionable that having less pointless suffering would be advantageous under all circumstances.

If it is to say "my life is good because I am satisfied" or "I want a good life therefore I will aim to be satisfied" then these are good ideas but over what timeframe is this person focusing? You may be satisfied when you eat a lot but dissatisfied over your weight gain or you may be satisfied in a low paying job now but many years down the track begin to regret. — Judaka

Regarding the “my life is good because I am satisfied” interpretation, it’s possible for people’s life to alternate between being good and bad during various parts of their life. Of course, if we wish to evaluate the entire life rather than simply a portion of a life then we would simply take a cumulative measure of each period of satisfaction and dissatisfaction. One hypothetical way we could do this is by asking a participant to rate their life satisfaction on an hourly basis on a scale of -10 to 10. -10 would imply that one strongly wants to commit suicide. 0 would imply that one is indifferent to being alive while 10 would imply extreme satisfaction. If we were to conduct such a survey with an individual for their entire life, we would probably get a decent representation of how satisfied they were throughout their entire life. Regarding the "I want a good life therefore I will aim to be satisfied" interpretation. This would imply a preference satisfaction theory of well being and it’s not clear if it’s good to get what you want in this case.

People, groups, society, culture and whatever else place values on particular attributes and qualities. I don't think these opinions matter until they matter. In other words, the people with those opinions have to matter and that includes yourself. All of this plays into whether one will be satisfied with their lot in life or not. — Judaka

So, how exactly would we determine if people matter or not? Wouldn’t this require us to evaluate the quality of people’s lives?

As I am a nihilist and a pragmatist, I feel compelled to evaluate things from the perspective of someone else's value system. There is no greater goal for people to aspire towards. People never have things sorted out though, they don't even know what they want. Even when they get what they want, they may become bored of it later and will want something new. Just ambition alone means that perhaps one will perpetually dissatisfied with what they've got. However, I interpret being satisfied to mean that your life is being lived in accordance with what you wanted out of it. Representing low internal conflict, knowing yourself and living well. Even if you aren't someone to be admired. — Judaka

Fair enough, would you not describe the goals of “getting what you want out of life“ and “lacking internal conflicts” as “greater goals” though? It’s actually somewhat controversial whether those goals should always be pursued though. I actually think it would be less controversial to claim that minimizing suffering and unpleasant experiences in your own life could be thought of as a good end goal to pursue for everyone. Of course, the question remains as to whether other goals could be prioritized above that goal.

I agree that life satisfaction isn’t a very good criteria for evaluating lives. I think lives are better evaluated through the measure of pleasant and unpleasant experiences. What criteria would you use to distinguish good lives from bad lives?

What criteria would you use to distinguish good lives from bad lives? — TheHedoMinimalist

Not sure, really.

I rarely dream up my own theories. I usually just read other people's theories and verify them for issues.

So, the idea is that someone dreams up a theory. Then, a lot of other people poke it for inconsistencies. If it fails, go back to step one. If it succeeds, then we have something new that could be worthwhile!

Fair enough, I agree that coming up with original theories which are actually good is extremely difficult. This is why I’m often hesitant to criticize other people’s theories unless I have heard of a better theory or there is a pretty obvious contradiction. It’s easy to be a critic of other people’s theories but it’s difficult to watch your own theory get criticized. To me, a great philosopher is one that dares to make their own theories and be willing to try demolish the credibility of their own theories to the best of their ability. Only if the theories survive the onslaught in the eyes of the theorist with great intellectual honesty, should this theorist continue to support any of his theories. I have personally abandoned many theories that I have created after realizing that they are flawed. It’s not always easy since you almost feel like those theories are like your children. It’s tempting for a philosopher to hold on to them despite their flaws.

As for the VR, people need to first opt for it, which is what I meant when I said they won't feel satisfied with it. The VR feels like a separate topic, I think there are many reasons why such an option would be unpopular that have nothing to do with people wanting more than hedonism. Social stigmas and the implications it may carry. I agree with the sentiment that people want more in life than pleasure and I also think people seek more than pleasure in their actions - a lot more. It's pretty complicated I think but since I agree with the general message being conveyed there, I won't go further into my thoughts.

Since you are talking about satisfaction as a way for a third-party observer to evaluate the quality of someone's life, to me, it instantly becomes a discussion about subjectivity. I think that's the case because if you agree that this is an entirely interpretative and subjective evaluation (and will always be) then this method is just another of the potentially infinite number of ways that one could choose to evaluate the quality of a life. The only thing that separates those and this one is the opinion of us humans. This way of evaluating the quality of a life is not particularly absurd or unreasonable but since truth isn't a factor, I would start to look at utility and appeal which would be a hard deviation from the topic.

The moment you used the word "evaluation", it's been determined that we're not looking for objective truth. We evaluate by interpreting, we give true things meaning, what is - IS and then everything else is our creation. Quality doesn't exist without interpretation - as things just are and they are not measured. It's not different if instead of from a person's mouth, it's by rules they created or criteria they established.

Without a truth value, there needs to be some other kind of value and I've yet to see an appeal for that. Since there is no need to evaluate the quality of other peoples' lives and I have yet to see any benefit for people who choose to evaluate the quality of others' lives in this way, I don't see the point of the whole thing.

If the satisfied slave has the better life, then this might imply that life satisfaction is perhaps the most important factor in determining quality of life. — TheHedoMinimalist

As John Stuart Mill says:

"It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied. And if the fool, or the pig, are a different opinion, it is because they know only their own side of the question.”

And what he is doing here is in determining the good. That which is good is that which leads to the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest number of people. And here he distinguishes between happiness and satisfaction, with the former being a higher function of humans and that which ought be maximized and the latter being simple pleasure and avoidance of pain which is not of his interest in maximizing.

So, why ought the slave be freed despite his comfort and acceptance of his fate? It's because there is a standard that demands that people strive for higher intellectual satisfaction and not live as animals. The religious would refer to this as living out to the extent of one's creation.

I am pretty sure that Aristotle, in writing on happiness, was not talking about sensation/pleasure. He referred to it in at least one place as being an assessed quality, assessed near the end of life (if it's the question of whether the life was a happy one), and as can be no surprise, he measured it against possibilities. That is, if a bunch of characteristics were in play, then the life was happy. These included (if memory serves) luck, many and good children, health, and so forth. In these regards in this context he wasn't a psychologist, nor trying to be one. So yes, I'm pretty sure I agree with the non-hedonic view of happiness.

I myself would go further - and it's possible that I got this from Aristotle or elsewhere and don't remember where; i.e., no claim here of originality - that if you can die happy, then you were happy. - and this covers a lot of possibilities.

I think that's the case because if you agree that this is an entirely interpretative and subjective evaluation (and will always be) then this method is just another of the potentially infinite number of ways that one could choose to evaluate the quality of a life. The only thing that separates those and this one is the opinion of us humans. — Judaka

Well, I would actually like to point out that my method for evaluating lives is relatively unpopular among humans. I think it’s probably more popular among farm animals :lol: . But, I have a question. If there is an infinite number of ways to evaluate lives, does this necessarily suggest that each method is equally reasonable? Is there not a hierarchy of reasonability among their various methods of evaluation? Surely if we had 2 life evaluators, and one evaluates life quality by comparing suffering in various lives while the other evaluates life by comparing practical accomplishments in various lives; it would seem to make sense to try to figure out if it’s more important to focus on attaining practical accomplishments or minimizing suffering. It also seems like there might be more reason to focus on one end goal over the other one. One such reason might be that there appears to be greater epistemic certainty that suffering is bad to some extent than that accomplishments are good to any extent.

This way of evaluating the quality of a life is not particularly absurd or unreasonable but since truth isn't a factor, I would start to look at utility and appeal which would be a hard deviation from the topic. — Judaka

I am certainly free to make a hard deviation from the topic if this relevant to distinguishing how we can know whether someone has made a good or bad decision in life. I think the goodness of a decision should be judged by the outcome of the decision option. This is why I think it is important to evaluate outcomes and lives.

Quality doesn't exist without interpretation - as things just are and they are not measured. It's not different if instead of from a person's mouth, it's by rules they created or criteria they established. — Judaka

Well, I actually find it quite helpful to use a numerical criteria for evaluation. For example, if I was a teacher grading essays or tests, then it would make more sense to apply a numerical score in addition to a letter grade. Measurements of quality are meant to be helpful guides to allow us to evaluate things in a relatively consistent manner. They are not meant to be precise but could still be thought of as having a greater objectivity than simply evaluating using your feelings. This is partly why we would find it unfair to have an English professor grade an essay without a rubric simply on the basis of how much she likes the paper. The rubric is designed to show us how to get a good grade on an essay. It is not designed to precisely measure writing ability. But, the goal of the rubric should not be trivialized since it is important for us to have a clearly stated objective even if the objective cannot be perfectly defined. Similarly, we should not trivialize the pursuit of creating a criteria which distinguishes good and bad outcomes of decisions and ultimately distinguishes good and bad decisions which we could make in our life. Even if such criteria is never perfectly precise, it is more useful to us than just naked intuition.

Without a truth value, there needs to be some other kind of value and I've yet to see an appeal for that. Since there is no need to evaluate the quality of other peoples' lives and I have yet to see any benefit for people who choose to evaluate the quality of others' lives in this way, I don't see the point of the whole thing.
11h — Judaka

I have personally seen the value for such evaluation in my own life and in the lives of others. For example, I had decided to reduce my alcohol consumption after making a pros and cons list for drinking alcohol. This list could be thought of as an evaluation of 2 possible lives that I could live: the 1st life is the life I live if I decide to continue drinking while the 2nd life is under the circumstances of my reduced alcohol consumption. While I cannot be certain that I would benefit from a reduced alcohol consumption, making this list reminded me of various disadvantages of alcohol that I had never thought about prior to making the list such as the suffering involved in alcohol withdrawal and alcoholism. Prior to making the list I thought the main disadvantage was just if you were a bad behaving drunk(which I’m actually a pretty pleasant drunk). In regards to evaluating the lives of other people, this project may be useful in moral and political philosophy. I have a tendency to ignore moral and political issues in favor of prudential issues which concern benefiting my own life in the long term. Even in those cases, it might be appropriate to evaluate likely outcomes of potential decision options. These decision options might include the decision to have children, marriage, deciding to go to college, and so on.

So, why ought the slave be freed despite his comfort and acceptance of his fate? It's because there is a standard that demands that people strive for higher intellectual satisfaction and not live as animals. The religious would refer to this as living out to the extent of one's creation. — Hanover

How do you know that there is a standard that demands that people strive for higher intellectual satisfaction and not live as animals?

am pretty sure that Aristotle, in writing on happiness, was not talking about sensation/pleasure. He referred to it in at least one place as being an assessed quality, assessed near the end of life (if it's the question of whether the life was a happy one), and as can be no surprise, he measured it against possibilities. That is, if a bunch of characteristics were in play, then the life was happy. These included (if memory serves) luck, many and good children, health, and so forth. — tim wood

So, why would having many and good children be valuable for its own sake? What if someone doesn’t want to have children?

I myself would go further - and it's possible that I got this from Aristotle or elsewhere and don't remember where; i.e., no claim here of originality - that if you can die happy, then you were happy. - and this covers a lot of possibilities. — tim wood

So, if I was unhappy for the first 99% of my life span and then was happy for just the last 1% of my life span, would say that I lived a good or happy life?