Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Hedonism

Rate this topic


Free Thinker

Recommended Posts

You don't actually hate someone every single minute of every day. You only hate them when you remember who they are and what it is they did that caused you to hate them, at which point the emotion wells up again. Similar thing with love.

And yes, emotion is a fleeting experience because no one can feel ANY emotion for extended periods of time. Try it, you'll see what I mean. Emotions like hate are very rarely long-lasting, and when they are, they only occur in bursts similar to what I described above, 'restarting' the emotion rather than 'resuming' it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You don't actually hate someone every single minute of every day. You only hate them when you remember who they are and what it is they did that caused you to hate them, at which point the emotion wells up again. Similar thing with love.

And yes, emotion is a fleeting experience because no one can feel ANY emotion for extended periods of time. Try it, you'll see what I mean. Emotions like hate are very rarely long-lasting, and when they are, they only occur in bursts similar to what I described above, 'restarting' the emotion rather than 'resuming' it.

I have thought about its and am convinced. Happiness is a "state of conciousness", not an emotion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is completely contrary to my observation of my own consciousness. I experience no fleeting emotions; in fact, they are ALWAYS the same unless I make a particular, conscious effort to change them. Whether I'm permitting myself to pay conscious attention to a particular emotion is a different matter.

Just as, if you know something, you know it ALL the time whether or not you're thinking about that particular part of your knowledge at the time, if you feel something, you feel it ALL the time, regardless of whether you're paying particular attention to it.

I think you mean that the physical response to the emotion is fleeting, which it is; it exhausts you to try and maintain it. But the emotion, those connections you have made that caused the physical response, is still there.

For example; I am disgusted by slimy things. I'm ALWAYS disgusted by slimy things; however, when I'm not encountering any slimy things my disgust is simply hanging about in my subconscious somewhere. If I want, I can pull it out and think actively about slimy things, feeling a mild disgust. If I encounter an ACTUAL, real-life slimy thing, it becomes rather immediate and personal and I feel a distinct physical reaction to it.

Happiness works (from my observations) the same way. Certain things make me happy; the process of successfully living and improving my life, generally. Most of the time it's humming along in the background with no attention from me. If I desire, I can pay specific attention to it: hey, I'm happy. When I encounter something that is the real-life generator of my happiness (something beautiful, or intelligent, or right, or good, or whatever; the things that make life worth living) I feel an intense physical response to it.

Oh, and all emotions are states of consciousness, btw. Everything your consciousness DOES is a state of consciousness. Defining happiness as a state of consciousness is like saying that a rock is made out of matter. It's true, but it doesn't tell you anything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am disgusted by slimy things. I'm ALWAYS disgusted by slimy things
No but the question is, imagine a slimy thing in your presence, for 24 hours a day, for a very long time. Are you going to be equally disgusted for all this time, or will your initial disgust be as you described, and all subsequent responses less and less, until you're indifferent to the thing?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No but the question is, imagine a slimy thing in your presence, for 24 hours a day, for a very long time. Are you going to be equally disgusted for all this time, or will your initial disgust be as you described, and all subsequent responses less and less, until you're indifferent to the thing?

I've actually done this experiment (not for 24/7, but for extremely long periods of time). It's called "working in a Fast Food restaurant". My disgust for the slimy things never eased OR went away, I simply made a constant mental effort to put it on the back burner so I could still function. THAT was almost as exhausting as the rest of the work. (BTW, this is an experience I don't recommmend to ANYONE.)

Oh, and from your example, if you get "fatigued" by the constant presence of something that elicits an emotional reaction then you should AUTOMATICALLY love your spouse less EVERY DAY, which, in a good relationship is not the case; you actually love your spouse MORE as time goes on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 5 months later...

[Mod's note: Merged with an earlier thread. - sN]

I've been struggling with this issue for a while. Epicurus is my idol. I think I am actually starting to think like him a . His theory after all does seem to have some validity. Isn't pleasure good if it helps yourself and others. Is wanting to live your life pleasurably really bad or hedonism. Arent we the choosers of our own and destiny. If someones goal is to just eat or watch porn all the time how would this be wrong. If it wrong because someone said it was wrong. Is it possible for it to be wrong if the person doesn't consider it being so?

(Fixed 10 spellings using spell-check! - sN)

Edited by softwareNerd
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just a thought, but how are these 'hedonist' eaters/watchers of porn going to get by in life, ie. pay their way?

If the answer is that this is what they do in their spare time, but the have successful jobs as well, then I'd reckon it is their choice and not morally wrong if they infringed on no-one else's rights.

If the answer is that they live off of Welfare and live parasitical lives at the expense of the tax-payers then it is totally immoral as those taxes are taken from productive individuals who have no choice in the matter. Remember that rational rights include the right to seek after your own happiness but never at the expense of anyone elses rights.

I suggest you read Ayn Rand's The Virtue of Selfishness to better understand the difference between rational self-interest and hedonism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just a thought, but how are these 'hedonist' eaters/watchers of porn going to get by in life, ie. pay their way?

If the answer is that this is what they do in their spare time, but the have successful jobs as well, then I'd reckon it is their choice and not morally wrong if they infringed on no-one else's rights.

If the answer is that they live off of Welfare and live parasitical lives at the expense of the tax-payers then it is totally immoral as those taxes are taken from productive individuals who have no choice in the matter. Remember that rational rights include the right to seek after your own happiness but never at the expense of anyone elses rights.

I suggest you read Ayn Rand's The Virtue of Selfishness to better understand the difference between rational self-interest and hedonism.

P

What I am trying to say is that how can something be wrong if the observer of it dosn't consider it being so or dosen't know what is right and wrong. Isn't right and wrong an enviornmental thing and depends on what the person thinks is right and wrong.An example is my cat. He dosen't understand what right or wrong is because he simply isn't capable of cognition of doing so. I know it sounds crazy but some people enjoy evil and bringing pain and suffering to others. Think about Hitler.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

P

What I am trying to say is that how can something be wrong if the observer of it dosn't consider it being so or dosen't know what is right and wrong. Isn't right and wrong an enviornmental thing and depends on what the person thinks is right and wrong.An example is my cat. He dosen't understand what right or wrong is because he simply isn't capable of cognition of doing so. I know it sounds crazy but some people enjoy evil and bringing pain and suffering to others. Think about Hitler.

Your comment about Hitler has been best defended as the "prudent predator" argument. It is on other threads, but the long and short of it is that successful predation is always about luck. Hitler was among thousands of other sorry souls in history who shared his core ambitions, including during his time, and who were slaughtered for their craziness. Predation, like all human activity or lack there of, is habit forming. It is also a complete lottery. Only a select few make it and the rest are slaves. Hitler and Mao had no good reason to think they would make it to the top and are the equivalent of the man who shoots cancer out of his brain with a suicide bullet. For Hitler, things didn't even work out that well anyway.

Ayn Rand's morality is an inductive one, that is, it depends on man's ability to apply what he knows about the past to a future which doesn't even exist and to do so successfully. I believe this is inductive logic. It is the realistic application of man's imagination. Rand's inductive morality is, to a large degree, in recognition of the fact that success in any pursuit, good or evil, is about having and getting in good habits and also planning for hard intelligent work and independence. It is not hedonism at all but a pursuit of happiness. You are working, not towards pleasure, but the state to best experience pleasure, as an individual and not a doomed piece of flux. It is about existence, and was originally supposed to be called existentialism. You might put it this way: the pleasure that Ayn Rand wants is not neccessarily hedonistic but that which is the gateway to all pleasure, as a happy *consequence* . It is the highest pleasure: spiritual exaltation.

Objectivism is thus, at base, a kind of benevelent and more rational stoicism: sort of the opposite of hedonism, while at the same time it is about living better and enjoying more than hedonists ever could.

Edited by unskinned
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

When "That which is good" is equal to "That which I believe is good.(for no reason I know or care to find out)" It leaves a blank check on what is good or evil and allows for things like the Holocaust to be "good". When "What is valuable" is the same as "that which I or we or they or he or He values" it destroys the entire subject of defining values by leaving it up to a reasonless irrational whim. For example "why does one enjoy eating?" Should be te question asked not "Do I enjoy eating right now?". "Why does man need values?" not "What particular thing should he value for no reason he knows or cares to find out?" Leaving ethics up to whim has been what has and still is destroying society along with food and porn.

A cat has the exact same sense of right and wrong that Epicurius had. Automatic, reasonless, whim.

"What I am trying to say is that how can something be wrong if the observer of it dosn't consider it being so or dosen't know what is right and wrong."

Is something true because someone desires it to be so? Is the victory of a football team dependant upon the fans' desire for them to win? Would the football players be extremely offended by that premise? No? No? Yes? Then ethics is also outside the realm of desires.

Objectivism holds that what is good is not a whim but an objective fact based in the nature of existence and the nature of life. Read "The Objectivist Ethics" in The Virtue of Selfishness for a longer discussion. (How many times has that sentance been written on this forum?)

For a day to day example: An objectvist would not party when he or she has nothing to celebrate. He or she would not eat unless he or she knows he will be hungry and die otherwise. He or she will not watch porn unless he or she knows it will be beneficial to his or her life (I won't go into detail :) ). He or she will not consume unless he or she has produced.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...