Free Thinker Posted April 26, 2005 Report Share Posted April 26, 2005 Now I may be digressing considerable with the question, but I'd like to hear what your opinions are. So the purpose of my existence is happiness, contentment, peace, pride, etc. All of those, by their nature, reduce down to emotions or pleaure. Granted, those emotions are significantly different from, let's say, the feeling one gets after eating an enjoyable meal, or the pleasure one gets from sex, etc. The goal of happiness demands setting goals and achieving them, which takes much longer and involves much more energy. When the dust settles, however, the end result is an emotion/pleaure. Hedonism, by definition is : "Pursuit of or devotion to pleasure, especially to the pleasures of the senses. Philosophy. The ethical doctrine holding that only what is pleasant or has pleasant consequences is intrinsically good. Psychology. The doctrine holding that behavior is motivated by the desire for pleasure and the avoidance of pain. " (source - http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=hedonism) Apart from the short sightedness and Nietzchean implications of such ideas, are we as value seekers hedonists? Is it possible to divorce the aforementioned characteristics from hedonism, or are they inexorably linked? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HaloNoble6 Posted April 26, 2005 Report Share Posted April 26, 2005 (edited) So the purpose of my existence is happiness, contentment, peace, pride, etc. All of those, by their nature, reduce down to emotions or pleasure. No, the purpose of one's life is to achieve one's values. Happiness is the consequence of doing this successfully. The emotional response is not the focus, achieving one's values is. Edited November 27, 2005 by Free Thinker Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dominique Posted April 26, 2005 Report Share Posted April 26, 2005 (edited) Philosophy. The ethical doctrine holding that only what is pleasant or has pleasant consequences is intrinsically good. Objectivism does not hold that "what is pleasant or has pleasant consequences is *intrinsically* good". In fact I doubt it would hold anything but life as *intrinsically* good. Objectivism holds that what is right (what supports and maintains one's goal of life) is good, and ultimately-pleasant. That is an effect, not a cause-of value judgement. Edited November 27, 2005 by Free Thinker Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iouswuoibev Posted April 26, 2005 Report Share Posted April 26, 2005 I just want to point out that pleasure and happiness are two different things. If I remember what I read correctly, then pleasure is a sensory faculty, and happiness is a conceptual one. Someone correct me if I'm wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
valjean Posted April 26, 2005 Report Share Posted April 26, 2005 No, the purpose of one's life is to achieve one's values. Happiness is the consequence of doing this successfully. The emotional response is not the focus, achieving one's values is. "My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute." —Ayn Rand The bolded parts in each quote seem to contradict. Anyone care to explain? Perhaps once we have agreement on this conundrum we can proceed to answer the original question. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HaloNoble6 Posted April 26, 2005 Report Share Posted April 26, 2005 (edited) Within the context of the first post, Free Thinker separated happiness from values. I attempted to make the connection. Within the context of the quote you have, this connection is presupposed. Happiness IS the successful achievement of rational values. When I said "no," I was saying no to happiness as a concept apart from values. Perhaps I should've clarified. Hedonism essentially separates happiness from values, essential makes the concept of happiness arbitrary. From Galt's speech: Happiness is that state of consciousness which proceeds from the achievement of one's values. Edited November 27, 2005 by Free Thinker Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Free Thinker Posted April 27, 2005 Author Report Share Posted April 27, 2005 I understand your argument a bit more clearly now. Still, I most presist with my conclusions with a few modifications/clarifications. I agree that hedonism with its claim to "intrinsic value of pleasure" makes it incredibly short sighted, thus immoral. I also agree with you that pleasure isn't necessarily value achievement. Let me explain with an example. One of the goals of my life is to find a woman who I love romantically - a woman who esteems my deepest principles and convictions. Let's say tommorow I met such a woman, and we fall in love and begin a wonderful journey. That acheivement would (eventually) create positive emotions - specifically the emotion of happiness. Would one pursue values without the end result of happiness? No - those "values" cease to become values. Would one pursue values without the end emotion? Probably not. Ergo, if one pursues any value, one is pursuing happiness, and by default an emotion. Please clear up my confusion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
valjean Posted April 27, 2005 Report Share Posted April 27, 2005 I'm not sure if this will clear anything up for you. I'm too busy to get properly involved in the semantics of this at the moment. I came across this, however, and thought about this thread and had to post it. "I am profoundly opposed to the philosophy of hedonism. Hedonism is the doctrine which holds that the good is whatever gives you pleasure and, therefore, pleasure is the standard of morality. Objectivsim holds that the good must be defined by a rational standard of value, that pleasure is not a first cause, but only a consequence, that only the pleasure which proceeds from a rational value judgement can be regarded as moal, that pleasure, as such, is not a guide to action nor a standard of morality." --Ayn Rand This was in an article about Ayn Rand in a book called "Contemporary Authors" and supposedly the quote was said in an interview with an Alvin Toffer. Sadly, this book does not cite where exactly the quote was originally published. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AMERICONORMAN Posted April 28, 2005 Report Share Posted April 28, 2005 (edited) I understand your argument a bit more clearly now. Still, I most presist with my conclusions with a few modifications/clarifications. I agree that hedonism with its claim to "intrinsic value of pleasure" makes it incredibly short sighted, thus immoral. I also agree with you that pleasure isn't necessarily value achievement. Let me explain with an example. One of the goals of my life is to find a woman who I love romantically - a woman who esteems my deepest principles and convictions. Let's say tommorow I met such a woman, and we fall in love and begin a wonderful journey. That acheivement would (eventually) create positive emotions - specifically the emotion of happiness. Would one pursue values without the end result of happiness? No - those "values" cease to become values. Would one pursue values without the end emotion? Probably not. Ergo, if one pursues any value, one is pursuing happiness, and by default an emotion. Please clear up my confusion. Happiness IS the result of achieving one's rational values. For a young adult, for example, whose sense of life reacts positively to Objectivism, it may be painful to follow the right moral principles as he judges them. One may have been given the christian-altruist ideal all one's life and still has a subconscious guilt. One may have felt guilty about wanting pleasure and now in a state of rebellion one may indulge in one's emotions, whims. One of the first things one must come to grips with is the necessity to follow one's conscious convictions. Objectivism is a rare philosophy that says that if one follows one's principles one will eventually achieve happiness (pleasure). However, psychologically, this will take time. So that for our young adult, it may be painful at first to follow reason. For example justice may be a hard and painful principle to follow. Just think of all the people with whom one will now need to be just to, i.e., punish, like mother, brother, father, friend, teacher, priest, etc. What Objectivism promises is that if one retains one's integrity, over time, happiness will be the result. Check out Rand's essay Philosophic Detection in PHILOSOPHY: WHO NEEDS IT. Towards the end she discusses briefly the idea of "psychological Atlantis" if one accepts and understands five crucial points. (I.e., "Objectivism while standing on one leg"). Americo. Edited November 27, 2005 by Free Thinker Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Free Thinker Posted April 28, 2005 Author Report Share Posted April 28, 2005 Happiness IS the result of achieving one's rational values. For a young adult, for example, whose sense of life reacts positively to Objectivism, it may be painful to follow the right moral principles as he judges them. One may have been given the christian-altruist ideal all one's life and still has a subconscious guilt. One may have felt guilty about wanting pleasure and now in a state of rebellion one may indulge in one's emotions, whims. One of the first things one must come to grips with is the necessity to follow one's conscious convictions. Objectivism is a rare philosophy that says that if one follows one's principles one will eventually achieve happiness (pleasure). However, psychologically, this will take time. So that for our young adult, it may be painful at first to follow reason. For example justice may be a hard and painful principle to follow. Just think of all the people with whom one will now need to be just to, i.e., punish, like mother, brother, father, friend, teacher, priest, etc. What Objectivism promises is that if one retains one's integrity, over time, happiness will be the result. Check out Rand's essay Philosophic Detection in PHILOSOPHY: WHO NEEDS IT. Towards the end she discusses briefly the idea of "psychological Atlantis" if one accepts and understands five crucial points. (I.e., "Objectivism while standing on one leg"). Americo. I just wanted to clear up my position one last time. I do not equate happiness with simply a momentary pleasure. My question is simply one of "semantics", or of the proper means of identifying happiness. I know that pleasure divorced from ideas is a null ethical system, it is that of an animal. What I am persisting with is simply that if happiness is an emotion, and the goal of our lives is that happiness, are we seeking an emotion? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AMERICONORMAN Posted April 28, 2005 Report Share Posted April 28, 2005 Yes, you are seeking an emotion. But seeking the value is more fundamental because the pleasant emotion might not follow from achieving a certain value, i.e., condemning the actions of an evil father. The value is the primary value. With a healthy mature psychology it will be hard to split up the value from the emotion. This is all I'm saying. Americo. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ariana Binetta Posted April 28, 2005 Report Share Posted April 28, 2005 "I am profoundly opposed to the philosophy of hedonism. Hedonism is the doctrine which holds that the good is whatever gives you pleasure and, therefore, pleasure is the standard of morality. Objectivsim holds that the good must be defined by a rational standard of value, that pleasure is not a first cause, but only a consequence, that only the pleasure which proceeds from a rational value judgement can be regarded as moral, that pleasure, as such, is not a guide to action nor a standard of morality." --Ayn Rand I also seem to be a little confused/unsure about Rand's logic here too. She seems like a bit of a killjoy. Or as if she believes in virtue and goodness for their own sake. (She doesn't literally believe this--but sometimes it sounds uncannily like this.) I don't think philosophical hedonists say pleasure is a "first cause" but rather a final result. To say that pleasure "is not a guide to action" seems to deny the pleasure/pain principle upon which all of life and flourishing is based. The deepest and widest pleasure is overall happiness--but it's still pleasure and an emotion. Rand usually implies that philosophical hedonists are mindless or stupid--which isn't very fair. I think it's interesting that the Encyclopedia Britannica puts "egoism" and "hedonism" under the same heading. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iouswuoibev Posted April 28, 2005 Report Share Posted April 28, 2005 I also seem to be a little confused/unsure about Rand's logic here too. She seems like a bit of a killjoy. Or as if she believes in virtue and goodness for their own sake. (She doesn't literally believe this--but sometimes it sounds uncannily like this.) Just one more reason why Miss Rand is so frequently misinterpreted. But if you understand what she meant, why mention it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Free Thinker Posted April 28, 2005 Author Report Share Posted April 28, 2005 I also seem to be a little confused/unsure about Rand's logic here too. She seems like a bit of a killjoy. Or as if she believes in virtue and goodness for their own sake. (She doesn't literally believe this--but sometimes it sounds uncannily like this.)I agree. I think that that's here the conclusion of "dogmatism" comes in. I of course am not accusing her of that, but am simply saying that it is a possibility with her followers. I don't think philosophical hedonists say pleasure is a "first cause" but rather a final result. To say that pleasure "is not a guide to action" seems to deny the pleasure/pain principle upon which all of life and flourishing is based. The deepest and widest pleasure is overall happiness--but it's still pleasure and an emotion. Rand usually implies that philosophical hedonists are mindless or stupid--which isn't very fair. I think it's interesting that the Encyclopedia Britannica puts "egoism" and "hedonism" under the same heading. I think that because most people do not have a solid understanding of ideas or of principles, hedonism is often the course most people take. I think that, like I stated before, hedonism has serious short-sighted and Nietzschean implications. I don't think that Objectivism is hedonism. Like others have commented on in this thread, Hedonism says that pleasure is good, Objectivism the good leads to pleasure, but not necessarily both ways. We have to understand that principles are not simply devoid of referent to reality, "the moral is the practical". (Which I believe is the consensus here). My conclusion? Happinesss is the ultimate good, but it is still an emotion. Nothing escapes reality. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
y_feldblum Posted May 1, 2005 Report Share Posted May 1, 2005 Objectivism does not hold that "what is pleasant or has pleasant consequences is *intrinsically* good". In fact I doubt it would hold anything but life as *intrinsically* good. Life is not intrinsically good. It is only a good to the one who chooses it. It is an objective, chosen value, not an intrinsic, absolute, categorical, commanded value. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Free Thinker Posted May 2, 2005 Author Report Share Posted May 2, 2005 Life is not intrinsically good. It is only a good to the one who chooses it. It is an objective, chosen value, not an intrinsic, absolute, categorical, commanded value. I am noy sure if I agree with you. I believe that the whole meaning of value, "intrinsic" or not, has to be related to man. Intrinsic means "in it of itself", which I do believe life is. What else could possibly meet that definition? If nothing, then what is life? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Free Capitalist Posted May 3, 2005 Report Share Posted May 3, 2005 (edited) Free Thinker, "intrinsic" means that a value exists without anyone to value it. For example, "chocolate will still be good even if all of humanity disappears" is an intrinsicist position. There are no intrinsic values, because to say something is valued presumes that there will be someone who will value it. And in regards to the main topic of this thread, "hedonism" is defined as pursuit of physical pleasure above all other considerations, including happiness, fulfillment, etc. As such, no we're not all hedonists, at least the good ones among us. I strongly suggest a great emphasis on proper definitions, because by just focusing on the definitions of two words, "intrinsic" and "hedonist" was enough for me to reply to your objections. Edited November 27, 2005 by Free Thinker Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Free Thinker Posted May 3, 2005 Author Report Share Posted May 3, 2005 (edited) Free Thinker, "intrinsic" means that a value exists without anyone to value it. For example, "chocolate will still be good even if all of humanity disappears" is an intrinsicist position. There are no intrinsic values, because to say something is valued presumes that there will be someone who will value it. And in regards to the main topic of this thread, "hedonism" is defined as pursuit of physical pleasure above all other considerations, including happiness, fulfillment, etc. As such, no we're not all hedonists, at least the good ones among us. I strongly suggest a great emphasis on proper definitions, because by just focusing on the definitions of two words, "intrinsic" and "hedonist" was enough for me to reply to your objections. Okay, I understandwith your position - but I have a few questions. I understand two schools of thought pertaining to value -subjectivist and intrinsic. What is the proper name for the Objectivist valuing system ie value as it benefits and extends man's life? I understand the definition of hedonism and have already conceded that Objectivism is not a hedonistic philosophy. If you recall, my question was one of semantics. To restate: If life's purpose is to gain as much happiness as possible, and happiness is an emotion, is our whole life dedicated to the pursuit of an emotion (however different and substanitive an emotion happiness may be)? Edited November 27, 2005 by Free Thinker Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy_X69 Posted May 4, 2005 Report Share Posted May 4, 2005 (edited) Okay, I understandwith your position - but I have a few questions. I understand two schools of thought pertaining to value -subjectivist and intrinsic. What is the proper name for the Objectivist valuing system ie value as it benefits and extends man's life? I understand the definition of hedonism and have already conceded that Objectivism is not a hedonistic philosophy. If you recall, my question was one of semantics. To restate: If life's purpose is to gain as much happiness as possible, and happiness is an emotion, is our whole life dedicated to the pursuit of an emotion (however different and substanitive an emotion happiness may be)? Actually, Objectivism is NEITHER subjective or intrinsic. Subjective, in Rand's terminology, means 'completely arbitary.' Intrinsic means 'valuable in itself, regardless of agents.' Intrinsicism falls prey to the fact that value is meaningless without an agent for something to be valuable to. Subjectivism ignores that as well and says value is a matter of will and being in orgasmic throes of "Saying YES! to life" (Nietzsche). Think of value as, under Objectivism, being analogous to a mathematical derivative of a relationship between an agent and this agents relevant context. The best term to use is the economic term (rational self-interest, or rational selfishness). To my knowlege, the only people that come close to Rand's value theory are the Austrian economists (yes, they called their theory Economic Subjectivism, but they never stated that value was an arbitrary whim). Edited November 27, 2005 by Free Thinker Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Free Capitalist Posted May 6, 2005 Report Share Posted May 6, 2005 and happiness is an emotionNo, happiness is not an emotion. Pleasure is an emotion. Happiness is that state of consciousness which proceeds from the achievement of one's values. happiness is an activity of the soul in accordance to virtue Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Free Thinker Posted May 6, 2005 Author Report Share Posted May 6, 2005 Define "state of consciousness" please. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Free Capitalist Posted May 6, 2005 Report Share Posted May 6, 2005 From www.dictionary.com: state n. 1. A condition or mode of being, as with regard to circumstances: a state of confusion. 2. A condition of being in a stage or form, as of structure, growth, or development: the fetal state. Here are some examples of what constitutes a state, so that you can arrive at the definition inductively: an excited state of consciousness, a drowsy state of consciousness, an active state of consciousness, etc. It is essentially the same as Aristotle's 'activity of the soul', i.e. something new aspect of the soul that arises out of actively achieving the soul's virtues. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMeganSnow Posted May 7, 2005 Report Share Posted May 7, 2005 Happiness is an emotion, thank you, pleasure is a sensation; it is automatic, physical, and non-negotiable. Pleasure is sometimes used to refer to a limited, low-level positive emotional response to something, the proper term for this is enjoyment. The pleasure/pain mechanism is the sensory data that you must assess rationally in order to determine what is good and bad for you. Putting your hand on a burner hurts; it's bad. Disinfecting an injury hurts; it's good. Why is it good? It prevents greater injury/damage further down the road. The pleasure/pain mechanism is not an automatic guide to rational values. The thing to remember is that emotions are not automatic. You must program your subconscious before you can experience an emotional response to something. If you are irrational, you have bad premises, you can program your subconscious to work in reverse; you gain enjoyment from lies and destruction. However, regardless of your attempt to deny reality your pleasure/pain mechanism operates automatically; your values are in contradiction with the source of values; you cannot be happy. Happiness is non-contradictory enjoyment. If you have undertaken the task of perceiving reality, evaluating it rationally, and have programmed your subconscious correctly then the source of your enjoyment will line up with your pleasure/pain mechanism (remembering that humans must project and act long-range . . . a little pain now saves a lot later, sometimes) and with reality; you gain enjoyment from truth and production, you can be happy. Hedonism is not the pursuit of happiness. It is the pursuit of pleasure. Happiness is and can only be the result of an exercise of rationality. Hedonism rejects any necessity of rationality; your body, it claims, provides you with an automatic and unnerring standard of values; your nerves know best. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Free Capitalist Posted May 7, 2005 Report Share Posted May 7, 2005 JMegan, I think what you're thinking of as emotion is not happiness but satisfaction, or joy. Happiness, as Aristotle defined it, is something altogether different from the regular run-of-the-mill emotions we feel every day, but some kind of culminatory experience that results from living a proper life in its totality, rather than from having some isolated moments of joy and satisfaction. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMeganSnow Posted May 7, 2005 Report Share Posted May 7, 2005 Is there something in the definition of emotion that states that it must be a temporary and fleeting experience? So, you only love your spouse for a few minutes a day? Or are you going to state that love is not actually an emotion because it is a tremendous cumulative sum and not a fleeting, temporary experience? What about hate? You can hate someone or something your entire life. That's not an emotion? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.