A Defense of Negative Hedonism

Philosophy Forums Philosophy
1

The following is a section from my “philosophy of life.” It defends negative hedonism, the view that peace of mind should be one’s primary goal. I would appreciate constructive feedback. For the purposes of this thread, please assume that atheism, moral anti-realism, and existential nihilism have been established. In case you would like to take a look at my complete philosophy, it may be found as an attachment to the opening post at the following link: http://forums.philosophyforums.com/threads/critique-my-philosophy-of-life-61111.html

Negative hedonism

I believe that achieving and maintaining happiness should be one’s ultimate goal in life.

o I define “happiness” as any of a spectrum of agreeable mental states ranging from contentment to intense joy.
o The combination of atheism, moral anti-realism and existential nihilism basically eliminates most possible ultimate goals that are not related to self-interest (such as “Do the will of God” or “Act in accordance with objective morality” or “Act in accordance with [the meaning or purpose of life]”).
o With respect to self-interest, all other goals (in my view) ultimately reduce to happiness (by repeatedly asking and answering “Why does one want X? For Y. Why does one want Y? (etc.)”), and I can think of no other, more fundamental or ultimate goal.
o Empathetic feelings (if one has them), while perhaps not derived from self-interest, incorporate the welfare of others into one’s own state of mind. Therefore, the pursuit of happiness usually takes into account adequately one’s empathetic feelings.
o As previously noted, one’s life may have subjective meaning and/or purpose. Also, one may follow a subjective moral code. However, these may be modified, and it would be irrational to settle on a meaning, purpose or moral code that is not consistent with one’s self-interest or empathetic feelings.

That said, I believe that one’s primary goal in life should be to achieve and maintain peace of mind.

o I define “peace of mind” as the absence of significant negative emotions, while still retaining one’s mental faculties. I define “negative emotion” as any emotion that feels uncomfortable. Examples may include distress, fear, frustration, anger, sadness, boredom and regret.

I believe that peace of mind should be one’s primary goal because (1) peace of mind is both necessary and sufficient for happiness, (2) peace of mind is the best enduring state of mind to which one can reasonably aspire, and (3) achieving and maintaining peace of mind is much simpler and easier than trying to maximize long-term happiness directly.

o Peace of mind is necessary for happiness: If one does not have peace of mind, then by definition one has significant negative emotions. One cannot have significant negative emotions and be happy at the same time. Therefore, peace of mind is necessary in order to be happy.
o Peace of mind is sufficient for happiness: Peace of mind entails that one is content: if one were not content, one would have significant negative emotions, which precludes peace of mind. Also, peace of mind enables a positive state of mind: one can take pleasure in the fact that one is not experiencing significant negative emotions.
o Peace of mind is the best enduring state of mind to which one can reasonably aspire. This is because emotions that feel better than contentment are temporary in nature.
o Achieving and maintaining peace of mind is much simpler and easier than trying to maximize long-term happiness directly. The former involves only a focus on eliminating negative emotions, while the latter requires simultaneous consideration of both positive and negative emotions. I define “positive emotion” as any emotion that feels pleasurable.

Once one has achieved peace of mind, positive emotions may enable one to feel even happier.

o Note that when one has achieved peace of mind, one does not have the need or desire to feel positive emotions, because one is already content. Nevertheless, one may still prefer to feel positive emotions.
o Positive emotions such as love, camaraderie, serenity, cheerfulness, enjoyment, wonder, gratitude and amusement may confer significant long-term net benefits.
o Some positive emotions may not be worth pursuing, especially if they are difficult to realize, temporary in nature, involve the risk of increasing negative emotions in the long run, and/or involve the risk of shortening one’s life. Examples may include frequent chocolate highs, the thrill of skydiving, the rush of being elected to public office, and drug-induced euphoria. However, if a particular positive emotion provides benefits in excess of costs, one may sensibly indulge. Prudence and moderation are the keys.
o It is worth noting that positive emotions may evacuate negative emotions from one’s mind. But as this effect is only temporary, one is better served by striving to achieve a sustainable peace of mind, rather than by continually chasing positive emotions.

Thanks for reading!

2

It sounds like a form of hedonism, but with the shift of focus on the internal experience rather than on desires connecting to external objects. So why ‘negative’ hedonism? It seems more like internal hedonism or solipsistic hedonism. Pardon my very first response, but this stood out so strongly I need to start there. I felt like I was missing something.

3

I call it “negative hedonism” because my primary goal is the absence of significant negative emotions. This may be distinguished from (positive) hedonism, in which the goal is the maximization of pleasure. Famous negative hedonists include Epicurus (my favorite philosopher) and Buddha, though there may be differences between their brands of negative hedonism and my own.

4

OK. I think it could be clearer because to me ‘peace of mind’ which is the goal in the beginning there, is not a state of absence but a state of pleasure. It’s not the only one, but to have it as a goal seems like a positive kind of hedonism. In any case, now I understand and can move on in the post.

5

It seems to me not accepting negative emotions, is a way of not accepting portions of oneself or reactions one has, ones that may very well be perfect for certain contexts. It seems to me the goal of nto having them creates splitting and self-judgment.

6

My view, consistent with that of the Stoics, is that our emotions are the result of judgments, a notion which underlies cognitive behavioral therapy. And I feel that true beliefs and proper perspective allow one to alter or eliminate the judgments that result in negative emotions. As a result, I feel that virtually all types of negative emotions may be severely reduced or eliminated without resorting to self-denial or cognitive dissonance. For a number of examples of techniques that employ this methodology, please consult pages 8-13 of my philosophy (at the link provided in my opening post).

Could you please elaborate on your claim that certain negative emotions are “perfect” for certain contexts? And perhaps provide a couple of examples?

7

One can abstract away from the situation where someone is trying to rape you, and imagine that you simply have a judgment against being penetrated when you do not want to be, or you can accept getting angry or scared in such a situation is fine and appropriate and may help one avoid and experience one does not want to have.

It seems to me fear and anger, which are often labeled negative, which is a judgment against a natural portion of the self, are simply part of what we are, and part of the range of natural reactions.

One already provided. All sorts of situations: one is fired from a job and has a family to feed. Both anger and fear can motivate one to meet the challenges presented by this. Perhaps the anger would lead to a civil suit that one wins, perhaps fear about not being able to feed the kids would lead to extended efforts in a job search. The Neuroscientist Damasio has shown that when emotions are inhibited or not present, being rational in the World is severely damaged, and this included the so called negative emotions. Someone treating you with disrespect over a long period of time may not listen to reasoned objections. Sometimes a blunt angry statement of one’s experience, including the judgment of the other person’s behavior is necessary for the other person to even consider evaluating their own behavior. (and note: that in some case expressing anger may not be the right move, does not detract from it being a natural reaction, it being a useful motivator and it being the right thing to do in certain relations) this need not be merely in anomalous relations with assholes. This kind of thing can come up between people who love eachother. Direct expression of emotion si simply a natural and healthy part of an intimate relationship. We come to understand the experiences of others and further it is honest and intimate. I have repeatedly encountered this in my marriage and Close friendships. I have appreciated very much that my spouse will express and accept her own anger. Sometimes she has even gotten really quite angry at me for not being nice to myself. This has really been an excellent Wake up call. Rationally and calmly telling me the same things was not effective. But I have also appreciated her concerns, which were often fears which she could not necessarily explain logically. They made me look at and reevaluate certain decisions and plans, given my great respect for her emotions and intuition. She has expressed similar appreciation for mine. There are many good reasons we are emotional - not that this very natural part of us needs justification, the onus should be on anyone wanting to get rid of the full range of natural reactions. And in fact it is.

8

As I explained to Buddha once, a highest priority of merely being void of bad, isn’t good.

9

If we leave the psychological part of it and consider the physical aspect of how life functions in the body, we might take note of how the body absorbs them when emotions are no longer being tampered with. There may be reasons for or against the presence of certain emotions. But due to the way it handles sensations, the nervous system cannot bear any sensation longer than the natural duration of the sensation. Whether they are pleasant or painful sensations it’s often attempted to extend the duration of certain sensations by thinking about them. But that can’t be done. Problems are created for the body that way. The attempt to solve problems at the psychological level may well be the cause of the problem.

Where do emotions try to take root? Isn’t it more in the intellect than the body? And how do the senses and the nervous system function especially when they do so in a very sensitive manner? Isn’t it in a smooth and peaceful way? – that condition is always what the body wants to go back to. If so, then the intellect is involved in the disturbances. You see, the intellect is no match to this extraordinary intelligence of the physical/biological organism. The life is aware of itself and is alacritous to respond against the pressures of mental encroachment in order to maintain its smooth, untroubled operation.

We have an idea of harmony and peace of mind. How to live at peace with oneself – that’s an idea. There is an extraordinary peace that is there already. What makes it difficult to live at peace with the self is the creation of what is called “peace,” which is totally unrelated to the harmonious functioning of this body.