How do you feel about hedonism?

[JimC]

I hesitate between stoicism and masochism.

I know what you mean, but I lean towards stoicism as a more valid opposite. Masochists seek out a stimulus that they desire; there are thus similarities to hedonists...

[Svartalf]

Well, The question was ambiguous as to whether the 'opposite' was NOT seeking pleasure, or whether it was seeking UNpleasure.

[John_fi_Skye]

As often the case, the devil is in the details. What you mean by hedonism matters, as, like atheism, it has been redefined into the ground by its critics less than exposited by its friends. Epicurus advocated a thoroughgoing hedonism, and his thoughts on the matter have been repeatedly misinterpreted, misrepresented and maligned throughout history. When you take into account that his views have been misrepresented by his critics, their criticisms of Epicurean hedonism become nothing but strawman arguments — the attempt to refute a position the man himself never advocated.

"What is more, urged Epicurus, life is full of sweetness. We might as well enjoy it; we might as well really make an art of appreciating pleasure. Later his doctrine came to be synonymous with sensualist hedonism, which is why the adjective epicurean has that connotation today. But delicate food, drink, and the pleasures of the flesh are not quite what he had in mind. What Epicurus really encouraged was a joyous cultivation of knowledge and friendships. He did write about the delight of food and drink, but he meant learning to experience fully the pleasure of eating even rough bread and water as well as other things; the idea is that you cultivate yourself more than the food."

— Doubt: A History, Jennifer M. Hecht

Declare your borders, sir. I will not enter into a land that has none only to become the property of the sons of Liu Bang.

Exactly, apophenia. The sort of hedonistic calculus prescribed by Epicurus was one of moderation, not extreme indulgence, as the modern vernacular connotes.

d. The Virtues

Epicurus’ hedonism was widely denounced in the ancient world as undermining traditional morality. Epicurus, however, insists that courage, moderation, and the other virtues are needed in order to attain happiness. However, the virtues for Epicurus are all purely instrumental goods–that is, they are valuable solely for the sake of the happiness that they can bring oneself, not for their own sake. Epicurus says that all of the virtues are ultimately forms of prudence, of calculating what is in one’s own best interest. In this, Epicurus goes against the majority of Greek ethical theorists, such as the Stoics, who identify happiness with virtue, and Aristotle, who identifies happiness with a life of virtuous activity. Epicurus thinks that natural science and philosophy itself also are instrumental goods. Natural science is needed in order to give mechanistic explanations of natural phenomena and thus dispel the fear of the gods, while philosophy helps to show us the natural limits of our desires and to dispel the fear of death.

http://www.iep.utm.edu/epicur/#SH5a

Emphasis mine.

And that was why I said I preferred eudaemonism.

[Ian]

Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is good enough for me.

Even if I had the financial means to live like a king, I'd probably have a hard time doing it. I'm not good at doing things for myself, even when I do have the means; it was a big step for me to book a flight to Zilla & Ayaan's meet in July. I've always had a strong sense of duty, ot maybe guilt, or maybe both.
I assume it's more duty than guilt - I wasn't raised Catholic or Jewish.

[apophenia]

Good catch, Hades. As noted, I don't know a whole lot, but the pieces appear to fit.

[apophenia]

From Serenity,

"Dear Buddha, please bring me a pony and a plastic rocket..."

[Audley Strange]

What is the opposite of hedonism?

Anhedonism, or Asceticism.

[Drewish]

What is the opposite of hedonism?

Anhedonism, or Asceticism.

Jainism?

[Bella Fortuna]

What is the opposite of hedonism?

Anhedonism, or Asceticism.

Jainism?

http://rationalia.com/forum/memberlist. ... file&u=113 Where do I sign up?

[Gallstones]

Okay so let's put out 4 different forms of hedonism:

1) Instant gratification is king. Who knows if I'll live to see tomorrow anyways? If other people get hurt, so be it. Sometimes my happiness means that other people won't be. That's just how life is.

2) Instant gratification is king. Who knows if I'll live to see tomorrow anyways? Just so long as I don't hurt anyone else. After all, they should be free to pursue their pleasures too.

3) Real happiness sometimes means forgoing immediate pleasure. Delayed gratification is key to achieving the best gratification. If other people get hurt, so be it. Sometimes my happiness means that other people won't be. That's just how life is.

4) Real happiness sometimes means forgoing immediate pleasure. Delayed gratification is key to achieving the best gratification. Just so long as I don't hurt anyone else. After all, they should be free to pursue their pleasures too.

Which of these (if any) are you okay with, live by, and such?

4.1) Real happiness sometimes means forgoing immediate pleasure. Delayed gratification is key to achieving the best gratification. Just so long as I don't hurt anyone else on purpose and who don't deserve it. After all, they should be free to pursue their pleasures too.

[apophenia]

I'm inclined to believe that meaning motivates more, and provides more durable pleasures than pleasure divorced of meaning. It may be difficult to understand the nature of meaning, but I think most, if given the choice between a life experienced as pleasurable but not particularly meaningful, or a meaningful life that's not particularly pleasurable, most would lean towards the latter. (Though whether they would stay there is another question. I'm reminded of a couple I knew in college who, given the opportunities open to computer programmers at the time, chose a company that paid them enormous sums of money. Within a year they had quit that job to take ones paying far less money. I doubt the pleasure of the work itself was radically different, yet they were profoundly relieved and more fulfilled than they had been while earning lots of money. This leaves some questions open, whether the lower paying job was more pleasurable for some reason other than its meaningfulness and depth of fulfillment, but it's a question not easily answered in favor of hedonism.)

I don't have kids so maybe someone else can chime in on whether their experience in having children was more or less ordered by the meaningful or pleasurable rewards, and at what stages. There may be a trap here in that biochemical motivators like oxytocin reinforce behaviors in a way that is not readily recognized as pleasure in the hedonist sense, but certainly involves the pleasure circuits.

How else can you explain people enduring as much as they do for so little reward? People may, without reflection, flinchingly suggest that nothing is worth dying for; but people betray this notion all the time. Soldiers march off to war in defense of an idea (democracy, freedom, moral right, the safety of their nation), and the thought of pleasure is least in their minds. Any theory of pleasure and hedonism has to at least grapple with these phenomenon.

[JimC]

What is the opposite of hedonism?

Anhedonism, or Asceticism.

The ascetic stance, of course! I was trying to remember that very word! Thanks!

I would be ascetic, were it not for gin...

[Robert_S]

Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is good enough for me.

Even if I had the financial means to live like a king, I'd probably have a hard time doing it. I'm not good at doing things for myself, even when I do have the means; it was a big step for me to book a flight to Zilla & Ayaan's meet in July. I've always had a strong sense of duty, ot maybe guilt, or maybe both.
I assume it's more duty than guilt - I wasn't raised Catholic or Jewish.

Protestant work ethic? Latent Calvinism? Ian in the hands of an angry god?

I'm the same way sometimes. I can't even get out and take a walk without a camera to capture images for others to enjoy. And I love going for a walk in the woods.

[apophenia]

It occurred to me that another aspect of the meaning / pleasure divide is love itself, or at least my experience of it. To my heart, love is beyond pleasure. It moves to a deeper warmth unrelated to the pleasures of hedonism, and the more it grows, the deeper the divide between that experience and the temporally fleeting brigands of hedonist pleasures. Maybe I don't experience love right, but that's my take on it.

Regarding the Stoics response, which probably requires more discursion than I will grant here: I have on occasion opined that classical Stoicism and Taoism are alike in that they posit that you are like a dog, tied with a length of chain to the bumper of a car, and the car is moving. You can choose to trot along at the same speed as the car, or not, in which case you would be dragged. Either way, your choice isn't much of a choice. At a recent philosophy meeting at which I introduced this analogy, one wag suggested that we could choose to bite the chain. I presume he meant bite it in two, as I doubt gumming the chain introduces a palpably distinct third option. However I was too smitten with my own cleverness to think rationally, and not wanting to waste a good latte dampening his ardor, I let fly with some ill considered bollocks which quickly drew a laugh. My folly aside, I think his third option was not well formed. What say ye?

Wait. Schopenhauer quote time: "Man can do what he wants but he cannot want what he wants."

And as long as I'm pretending to wax philosophical, I'll introduce my favorite new term. Phantasia kataleptike. Plural, kataleptikai. Maybe some day I'll even explain it. It's an obscure technical term from Stoic epistemology, and I'm using it everywhere. Be warned. Be afraid. Be very afraid.