When we say ... that pleasure is the end and aim, we do not mean the pleasures of the prodigal or the pleasures of sensuality, as we are understood to do by some through ignorance, prejudice or wilful misrepresentation. By pleasure we mean the absence of pain in the body and of trouble in the soul. It is not by an unbroken succession of drinking bouts and of revelry, not by sexual lust, nor the enjoyment of fish and other delicacies of a luxurious table, which produce a pleasant life; it is sober reasoning, searching out the grounds of every choice and avoidance, and banishing those beliefs through which the greatest tumults take possession of the soul. — Epicurus

Energy is neither created nor destroyed. If one feels pleasure, another must feel pain. What the real question is, is 'Would a world based on competition for sensually pleasurable things (I guess you could substitute the word 'resources to power') be a good one?

It sounds like the already existing natural world. The whole foundation of civilization is built upon collective strength and thus individual weakness.

If one feels pleasure, another must feel pain. — kudos

Why? I've been involved in a number of encounters wherein pleasure was mutual, shared and reciprocal.

But what of hedonism and uncontrolled self indulgent pleasures of the senses would this, if it went unchecked have a negative effect on a higher cultured society, would it bring it down say or have these two always co-existed ? — simplyG

That depends on the proportions and the society's means of providing for basic needs. If the sciences, arts and education were made possible by the labour of an underclass deprived of all pleasures, and that underclass gave itself over to self-indulgence, the society would collapse very quickly. If the uncultured, toiling majority never tasted of pleasure at all, while the cultured minority produced nothing, the society would certainly be heading for a bloodbath. If a few people at a time took a break from productive endeavours to indulge themselves and then returned to work, the society would be fine.

Furthermore, would creating purely a hedonistic, pleasure seeking society have negative effects on the progress of humanity ? — simplyG

What progress of humanity? If circumstances were such that nature provided the necessities and everyone could indulge in sensual pleasure - assuming the pleasures indulged in were not sadistic or destructive - people would do no harm and they would never be banished from Eden. In fact, isn't that why Christians curb their mundane desires, so they can end up in Heaven?

Why? I've been involved in a number of encounters wherein pleasure was mutual, shared and reciprocal.

I mean to say that pleasure always has both moments, the negative and positive. For instance, how often to you feel pleased at taking a shower, or having mashed potatoes? Five hundred years ago, half of the world would consider that a great pleasure. We see it in the pain of another who feels their lack in our place. Pleasure is a psycho-active identification of pain in another. It has a positive aspect too, but this negative side is always there alongside it.

For instance, how often to you feel pleased at taking a shower, or having mashed potatoes? — kudos

Every single time. These are pure, innocent hedonistic pleasures that cause nobody any pain.

We see it in the pain of another who feels their lack in our place. — kudos

Only if it's denied to them because someone has it. My marital relations do not deny anyone else the enjoyment of physical love. My mashed potatoes were not stolen from anyone's table. My shower did not drain anyone's drinking water.

Pleasure is a psycho-active identification of pain in another. — kudos

I disagree. (I held back a much ruder response. Where the hell do get these simplistic 1/0 ideas?)

I disagree. (I held back a much ruder response. Where the hell do get these simplistic 1/0 ideas?)

Good... good... feel the hate swell within you. It will bring you great pleasure to strike me down. And all the while you come closer and closer to the dark side. -The Emporer

Most decisions, whether toward short or long term gratification, involve the pursuit of pleasure and avoidance of pain.

Imagine the classic scenario of the marshmallow test for very young children. They're told if they can delay gratification for a bit they'll be rewarded with more marshmallows. If they didn't have an expectation of a any enjoyment, or the avoidance of pain, there would be no incentive to do anything.

Is the preference to avoid pain at the expense of transient moments of high pleasure, considered hedonistic?

Consider possible outcomes of a more sadistic version of the marshmallow test. The children are told that they will be harshly beaten if they eat the marshmallows that sit on table in their room. Those that make the mistake get beaten. Would there be any children, who having lived through the experience of being beaten for eating the marshmallows, continue to choose to eat the marshmallows again and again because the pleasure of the eating outweighs the pain of the beating?

Even an ultimate pursuit of ascetic self-denial must have an incentive. The subject that demands such self-control must know the anticipation for reward/relief, even if it never comes.

Consider possible outcomes of a more sadistic version of the marshmallow test. The children are told that they will be harshly beaten if they eat the marshmallows that sit on table in their room. Those that make the mistake get beaten. Would there be any children, who having lived through the experience of being beaten for eating the marshmallows, continue to choose to eat the marshmallows again and again because the pleasure of the eating outweighs the pain of the beating? Would that choice be attributable to a hedonistic tendency? — Nils Loc

That's the story of Genesis. Adam and Eve were pure hedonists before taking the fruit. They took it anyway, got the grandfather of all beatings, and yet did did continue to pursue knowledge, including expressly forbidden knowledge. Is that a Socratic tendency?

Even an ultimate pursuit of ascetic self-denial must have an incentive. The subject that demands such self-control must know the anticipation for reward/relief, even if it never comes. — Nils Loc

I sup[pose the 'pleasure' being sought is either mastery over nature or Heaven.

It’s also worth noting that a lot of modern pop culture promotes hedonistic lifestyles in terms of the portrayal of the 7 deadly sins such as gluttony, lust, greed, envy, pride etc quite openly thanks to mainstream media and the short attention spans of most viewers. You’ve also got idolatry there too in the form celebrity worship.

These values are youth corrupting by how they’re not only tolerated but actively promoted by various powerful media agents to generate shallow interest and objectification and glorification of these sins whilst virtues are not worth a nickel.

The question is why? One of them is money which is the root of all evil as by participating in these 7 deadly sins not only does society become degenerate but ends up pursuing false ideals.

But what should be promoted instead? Well these come to mind: prudence, temperance, fortitude and justice in addition to kindness and charity.

Yet capitalism has no care for such virtues.

Is that a Socratic tendency? — Vera Mont

Sorry, there were four too many of those questions. :sweat:

Guess I merely stating my belief in psychological hedonism, that a pursuit of pleasure and the avoidance of pain is the primary source of human motivation.

Guess I merely stating my belief in psychological hedonism, that a pursuit of pleasure and the avoidance of pain is the primary source of human motivation. — Nils Loc

That's the primary motivation of all living things. We humans make an elaborate song-and-dance about it, while a grasshopper just chews on leaves and leaps out of the way of the lawnmower.

But what of hedonism and uncontrolled self indulgent pleasures of the senses would this, if it went unchecked have a negative effect on a higher cultured society, would it bring it down say or have these two always co-existed ? — simplyG

Maybe wealth could be a proxy for a kind of capacity for pursuing pleasure and avoiding pain. The Gulf petrostates always come to mind when I think of dissolute hedonism. These countries/states are theocratic, conservative, Muslim, which contrasts absurdly with the most extreme kind of luxury eyes can behold, for privileged classes of course.

According to civil service minister Khaled Alaraj, many Saudi government employees are really only working for an hour each day.

Almost 70% of employed Saudi nationals -- more than 3 million -- hold jobs in the public sector, according to McKinsey. The cushy positions are highly coveted because they offer ironclad job security and lucrative salarie. — https://money.cnn.com/2016/10/20/news/saudi-government-workers-productivity/index.html

One wonders how civil society functions within Saudi Arabia if a majority of its public sector only work a few hours a day. There must be a considerable underclass/immigrants holding things together. Some folks in a subreddit were commenting on this CNN article, sharing stories of how working with Saudi public sector was frustrating because they won't do what they consider "slave" work and instead have recourse to outsourcing tasks they don't want to do. This sounds so absurd and is probably awful for the stability of the nation in the face of possible economic downturns.

I think it’s the nature of public service workers to be somewhat complacent or lazy when it comes to work ethic, not bound for any need for profit this phenomena is widespread in the west too. One can look at Greece and their corrupt/incompetent/lazy public servants before Greece went bankrupt.

Sloth essentially one of the 7 deadly sins seems widespread in the public sector as the public sector does not have the same drive towards profit as most commercial organisations where cost efficiencies are paramount.

I think it’s the nature of public service workers to be somewhat complacent or lazy when it comes to work ethic, not bound for any need for profit this phenomena is widespread in the west too. — simplyG

I don't think that is always true across the board these days. Many public service workers I know have to meet strict KPI's and productivity outcomes. And a worker's time and use of breaks are monitored and contracts are revoked it workers step out of strict program guidelines. The fact is that many public service roles these days are overseen by neo-liberal mechanisms which are generated by the same rapacious cocksuckers who dominate corporations - Deloitte, KPMG, McKinsey &Co, Nous Group etc.