• TheMadFool
    13.8k
    This thread is an offshoot of @Pfhorrest's thread Why are we here

    My exchange with Pffhorest revolved around Hedonism as I made it known that people are here (in this forum) most likely because they find philosophy pleasurable i.e. people have a hedonistic agenda in being here and taking part in the discussions.

    Given the above is true, Pffhorest's question to me, inquiring of what about philosophy I found pleasurable seems to lead to an intriguing fact about hedonism which I will come to in good time.

    Assume with me that a person P admits to liking philosophy or, in other words, finds philosophy pleasurable i.e. P has a hedonistic objective in doing philosophy. This being so, we can ask P what about philosophy he finds pleasurable. Suppose P says that philosophy's strong emphasis on rationality is what P finds pleasurable. Before this post I would've stopped further questioning and concluded P finds logic pleasurable.

    However, there's absolutely nothing wrong in asking P the question: what about rationality is pleasurable? P then might reply that the fact that rationality ensures not losing touch with reality makes rationality pleasurable. Can no more questions concerning Hedonism be asked to P? To my surprise, it seems we can ask another question to P: what about not losing touch with reality is pleasurable? P might have a perfectly reasonable reply but whatever constitutes that reply, we can always ask what about it (content of the reply) P finds pleasurable? So on and so forth, ad infinitum.

    This is the Hedonistic Infinity.


    Since infinity is endless, it follows that it's impossible to ever know what exactly it is about the things we find pleasurable that makes these things pleasurable.

    That said, we're finite beings and nothing in our non-quantitative experience is infinite and so the chain of answers to such questions might loop back to where we started, square one, and this circularity suggests that we answer the question, "what about x do you find pleasurable?" with "I just find x pleasurable. That's all there is to it."

    This is the Hedonistic Loop
  • Pfhorrest
    4.6k
    I’ll just quote my response from the other thread here:

    There is indeed an infinite regress there, and that is precisely why the normative equivalents of justificationism would be absurd; there is likewise a similar infinite regress about beliefs that makes epistemic justificationism equally absurd. But nevertheless, it still makes sense to wonder what it is about something that makes it seem good to you (or makes it seem true to you). You may not have an answer, but if you do then I’ve learned more about the details of your thoughts by asking.Pfhorrest
  • Pantagruel
    3.4k
    This seems to me a spurious regress. While you can always analytically decompose any thing or event, this does not remove or divert the value or experience from the original thing. A enjoys X. X has the features f1,f2,f3,f4. Just because A enjoys f1 more than f2 does not mean that
    1. A does not enjoy X
    2. A enjoys f1 outside of the context of X

    I would call this a 'decompositional fallacy'
  • TheMadFool
    13.8k
    What about X does A find pleasurable?
    Something, right? Say f1 or f2 or f3 or all of them.
    What about f1 or f2 or f3 is pleasurable? is the next question.
    And so on and so forth...ad infinitum

    Why would you call this a fallacy?

    Try it on your self. Why, Let me try it on you.

    Question 1: why are you Pantagruel here (in this forum)?
    Let me guess. You get pleasure from being here.

    Question 2: what about being here gives you pleasure?
    How would you answer question 2.

    waiting...
  • I like sushi
    4.9k
    As far as I understand Hedonism it is that life should be judged through pleasure and pain - obviously with the aim of maximising the former!

    I’m here for punishment :D
  • Pantagruel
    3.4k
    Why would you call this a fallacy?TheMadFool

    Because it is specifically an example of the fallacy of division?

    Johnny loves his car. Johnny mostly loves the engine of his car. But without the car, Johnny no longer loves the engine.
  • TheMadFool
    13.8k
    As far as I understand Hedonism it is that life should be judged through pleasure and pain - obviously with the aim of maximising the former!

    I’m here for punishment :D
    I like sushi

    To receive or dispense, punishment? Punisher or Punishee?
  • TheMadFool
    13.8k
    Because it is specifically an example of the fallacy of division?Pantagruel

    Why are you here Pantagruel?
  • Pantagruel
    3.4k
    Why are you here Pantagruel?TheMadFool

    LOL! I presume you just read why in the other thread and this is banter.
  • TheMadFool
    13.8k
    LOL! I presume you just read why in the other thread and this is banterPantagruel

    It's ok.

    As long as one always give a reason for one's pleasure, the question why the reason you gave makes one experience pleasure can be asked.
  • Pantagruel
    3.4k
    As long as one always give a reason for one's pleasure, the question why the reason you gave makes one experience pleasure can be asked.TheMadFool

    Yes, that is the essence of criticizability in general. It's what makes rationality possible!

    Edit:
    I think it isn't clear that pleasure is the only or highest desideratum. Many moral philosophers believe the apperception of duty through recognition of obligations and rights to be an elevated type of experience. I think I'm rather of that ilk. I don't believe my answer on the other thread (which was just the question "why are you here") depended in any way on the concept of pleasure.
  • Zophie
    176
    As long as people fear the unknown it may be possible to ground this as a linear question of survival.
  • Pinprick
    950
    @TheMadFool

    I think the issue here is subjectivity. If I were able to give you an objective, physical, explanation of why X is pleasurable, I think it would end the regress. An example of this type of explanation would be to explain that your brain reacts in a specific way to a specific stimuli which causes the subjective experience of pleasure. Of course, we’re not able to give these types of explanations at this time because we aren’t aware of what our brains are doing physically. And it is that reason that when we are asked for an explanation that we just point to some other quality of the object. One the one hand we give the wrong answer, but on the other hand, asking “why” doesn’t make sense. We should instead ask “how.”
  • A Seagull
    615


    Just because you can ask an infinity of questions, that doesn't make hedonism either infinite or looped. What makes you think that it does? You can ask an infinite number of questions about anything.
  • TheMadFool
    13.8k
    Yes, that is the essence of criticizability in general. It's what makes rationality possible!

    Edit:
    I think it isn't clear that pleasure is the only or highest desideratum. Many moral philosophers believe the apperception of duty through recognition of obligations and rights to be an elevated type of experience. I think I'm rather of that ilk. I don't believe my answer on the other thread (which was just the question "why are you here") depended in any way on the concept of pleasure.
    Pantagruel

    John Stuart Mill developed his hedonistic moral theory but made it a point to differentiate higher pleasures from lower pleasures. To my knowledge the difference between the two can't be pleasure-based for many would agree that the lower pleasures (e.g. sex) is infinitely more pleasure-giving than the higher pleasures (e.g. doing philosophy). I'm not quite clear on this but the most pertinent factoid I can think of is Islam's conception of heaven and the reward they promise to martyrs of the faith - not the company of the likes of Socrates, Leonardo da Vinci, Isaac Newton, etc. but 72 virgins.
  • TheMadFool
    13.8k
    Just because you can ask an infinity of questions, that doesn't make hedonism either infinite or looped. What makes you think that it does? You can ask an infinite number of questions about anything.A Seagull

    If I say that something, say x, gives me pleasure, it is perfectly ok for someone to ask me "what about x gives me pleasure?" Pfhorrest asked me that exact question. From this it's a small step to the next question "what about that about x, that gives me pleasure, gives me pleasure?" The third question is wating in the wings and so is a fourth and a fifth...ad infinitum.
  • TheMadFool
    13.8k
    think the issue here is subjectivity. If I were able to give you an objective, physical, explanation of why X is pleasurable, I think it would end the regress. An example of this type of explanation would be to explain that your brain reacts in a specific way to a specific stimuli which causes the subjective experience of pleasure. Of course, we’re not able to give these types of explanations at this time because we aren’t aware of what our brains are doing physically. And it is that reason that when we are asked for an explanation that we just point to some other quality of the object. One the one hand we give the wrong answer, but on the other hand, asking “why” doesn’t make sense. We should instead ask “how.”Pinprick

    An interesting angle. Answering a "how?" is easier than answering a "why?" For the former all we need to do is look at the processes involved and connect the dots in the causal web. For the latter, we need to think deep and hard for we're always in unmapped territory.
  • A Seagull
    615
    If I say that something, say x, gives me pleasure, it is perfectly ok for someone to ask me "what about x gives me pleasure?" Pfhorrest asked me that exact question. From this it's a small step to the next question "what about that about x, that gives me pleasure, gives me pleasure?" The third question is wating in the wings and so is a fourth and a fifth...ad infinitum.TheMadFool

    So what? What do you conclude from that?

    It certainly does not mean that pleasure is infinite, nor even infinitely reducible.
  • Pinprick
    950
    For the latter, we need to think deep and hard for we're always in unmapped territory.TheMadFool

    Or because we are desperately trying to justify our choices, feelings, etc. after the fact. We’re simply making it up as we go, because we’re unable to access the true causes of our actions, beliefs, etc. We aren’t aware of the cause (what our brain is doing), but we are aware of the effect (subjective experience X). It seems that our brains are wired to seek causes, but since the cause lies outside our perception, we seek elsewhere. I think the lengths we will go to justify our actions, etc. are apparent to anyone paying attention.
  • Pinprick
    950
    So what? What do you conclude from that?

    It certainly does not mean that pleasure is infinite, nor even infinitely reducible.
    A Seagull

    Not to speak for Fool, but I would conclude that there simply is no essence of pleasure. IOW’s it can’t be reduced at all. It is what it is.
  • A Seagull
    615
    Not to speak for Fool, but I would conclude that there simply is no essence of pleasure. IOW’s it can’t be reduced at all. It is what it is.Pinprick

    Well that would be simplest, and probably undeniable too.
  • TheMadFool
    13.8k
    Or because we are desperately trying to justify our choices, feelings, etc. after the fact. We’re simply making it up as we go, because we’re unable to access the true causes of our actions, beliefs, etc. We aren’t aware of the cause (what our brain is doing), but we are aware of the effect (subjective experience X). It seems that our brains are wired to seek causes, but since the cause lies outside our perception, we seek elsewhere. I think the lengths we will go to justify our actions, etc. are apparent to anyone paying attention.Pinprick

    Indeed, the whole point of the matter may revolve around the principle of sufficient reason - we're in the habit of thinking in terms of cause and effect and so to inquire into a cause for our happiness, or anything else, comes naturally to us. Thus the question put to me by Pfhorrest - what about being here (in the forum) gives me pleasure?

    Like you pointed out, maybe if something makes one feel pleasure then, that's all there is to it; it may not be possible to pin down what about that something causes one's pleasure.

    However, note that there's always something that causes (gives) pleasure. Pleasure can't be experienced without engaging in something. I mean I can't simply decide one fine day that I want to feel pleasure and by that desire alone start experiencing pleasure. No, what I have to do to get pleasure is to find something (an activity, an object, etc.), that I find pleasurable and only when I assosciate myself with that something does pleasure come to me.

    So what? What do you conclude from that?

    It certainly does not mean that pleasure is infinite, nor even infinitely reducible.
    A Seagull

    I'm not saying pleasure is infinite. I'm saying that if pleasure must have a cause/reason, we can never find it.
  • ernestm
    1k
    However, there's absolutely nothing wrong in asking P the question: what about rationality is pleasurable? P then might reply that the fact that rationality ensures not losing touch with reality makes rationality pleasurable. Can no more questions concerning Hedonism be asked to P? To my surprise, it seems we can ask another question to P: what about not losing touch with reality is pleasurable? P might have a perfectly reasonable reply but whatever constitutes that reply, we can always ask what about it (content of the reply) P finds pleasurable? So on and so forth, ad infinitum.TheMadFool

    That's all very clever, lol, but I guess you run into problems with how OTHER philosophers define pleasure, for example, Locke in the Essay on Human Understanding defines pleasure as temporary satiation of the physical senses with fades with time; and so we were created with 'appetite' that is continually renewed, due to the greatest wisdom of God, that we may continually find the simplest enjoyments of being alive. After that, Locks states, and hence as stated in the constitution by jefferson, as a natgural right, we may instead know happiness, which is more enduring fulfillment of the soul, necessary for the perpetuation of a successful government, for the most enduring and longest lasting happiness is acting for the greater good.

    All that said, there has been alot of anger about the theistic definition of happiness in natural rights, but for some reason people still generally agree with Locke about the definition of pleasure, even if they deny it was intentionally created by a divine supernatural being.

    Hence I think it difficult for you to defend that philosophy is hedonistic, due to the pervasive general opinion that the pleasure it is based on derives purely from the physical senses. Whereas most would agree that philosophy can make you happy, even if only a few wise few agree that acting for the greatest good yields the most permanent and everlasting happiness.
  • Pfhorrest
    4.6k
    Beyond these concrete forms of beauty, there are also more abstract aspects to beauty, to be found in the form or structure of a phenomenon (be it natural or a work of art) rather than in its relation to reality or morality, though this abstract sense of beauty also factors into the concrete kinds discussed above. This is beauty as in elegance, which is to say, the intersection of a phenomenon being interestingly complex, but also comprehensibly simple. Complexity draws one's attention into the phenomenon, seeking to understand it; and if that complexity is found to emerge from an underlying simplicity, beauty can be experienced in the successful comprehension of that complexity by way of the underlying simplicity. That is to say, symmetries and other patterns, that allow us to reduce a complex phenomenon to many instances and variations of simpler phenomena, are inherently beautiful in an abstract way detached entirely from whether the phenomena are concretely real or moral. This is the kind of beauty to be found in abstract, non-representational art, and also in places besides art such as in mathematical structures.

    The tension here between interesting complexity and comprehensible simplicity is, I think, what underlies the distinction many artists, audiences, and philosophers have made between what they call "high art" and "low art". Those who prefer so-called "high art" are those with enough experience with the kinds of patterns used in their preferred media that they are able to comprehend more complex phenomena than those less experienced, but simultaneously find simpler phenomena correspondingly uninteresting. Those who prefer so-called "low art" (so called by the "high art" aficionados, not by themselves) instead find more complex phenomena incomprehensible, but are simultaneously more capable of taking interest in simpler phenomena. Unlike the attitudes evinced in the traditional naming of these categories, I do not think that "high art", a taste for complex phenomena, is in any way inherently better than "low art", a taste for simple phenomena. In each case, the aficionados of one are capable of appreciating something that the other group cannot, while incapable of appreciating something that the other group can. In my opinion, if any manner of taste was truly to be called objectively superior, it would be a broader taste, capable of comprehending complex phenomena and so appreciating "high art", while still remaining capable of finding simple phenomena interesting and so appreciating "low art". In that way, audiences with such taste would be best capable of deriving the most enjoyment from the widest assortment of phenomena, both natural and artistic.
    On Rhetoric and the Arts
  • TheMadFool
    13.8k
    That's all very clever, lol, but I guess you run into problems with how OTHER philosophers define pleasure,ernestm

    Hence I think it difficult for you to defend that philosophy is hedonisticernestm

    Firstly, hedonism encompasses all definitions of pleasure - it matters not whether Locke or Bentham or Mill or someone. All that matters is it may be asked, whatever one's concept of pleasure is, "why are you experiencing pleasure?" and whatever the answer, the same question maybe asked again, so on and so forth.
  • ernestm
    1k
    S that means, I guess, you are also at odds with Wittgenstein. Well whatever, I do wish you well on your pursuit. If it gives you an erection to talk about the philosophy of hedonism, I couldnt be happier for you! lol
  • TheMadFool
    13.8k
    :ok: :up: Thanks.

    I think I get your drift if you mean to say higher pleasures is to lower pleasures as high art is to low art, the relevant factor here being the complexity/simplicity distinction.

    Well, I've always appreciated hedonism once it dawned on me how fundamental it is - that not only humans but all living things can relate to it (or so it seems). This universality of hedonistic philosophy is its greatest appeal so far as I'm concerned for it hits the bullseye regarding our motives in doing anything at all. "Look", says the hedonist, "Cut the crap. I know what you want. You just want pleasure.". "So, before you go on and write some highfalutin book or make a impassioned speech about something, be sure that you don't forget the real reason why you're doing it." Hedonism is the call to come back down to earth.

    That out of the way, I'm not sure enough that the difference between higher and lower pleasures is a matter of complexity/simplicity. There definitely is beauty in both complexity and simplicity but the lower pleasures (e.g. sex, eating haute cuisine, etc.), if preferred over the higher pleasures, seem to reduce us to animals. I'm not saying we aren't animals for we are but I am saying that to be different from other animals we need to choose the higher pleasures over the lower pleasures. Speaking for myself, it's easier said than done.
  • TheMadFool
    13.8k
    S that means, I guess, you are also at odds with Wittgenstein. Well whatever, I do wish you well on your pursuit. If it gives you an erection to talk about philosophy, I couldnt be happier for you! lolernestm

    :lol: My erection days are long gone :rofl:
  • Banno
    25.2k
    What about X does A find pleasurable?TheMadFool

    X.

    End of regress.
  • TheMadFool
    13.8k
    X.

    End of regress.
    Banno

    Yes. that would end the regress but you don't know WHY? X makes you happy.
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.