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.
How might one be able to defend the idea of Hedonism. I have read so many articles on how hedonism is wrong, can someone tell me how Hedonism is right?
‘Hedonism’ covers so many different writers and schools, it would be best to take them in order and explain the differences between them. But Match of the Day in on in a few moments and I have to watch it because Cristiano Ronaldo scored a belter (rare occurence) and Chelsea got beaten (very rare occurence).
I can fathom someone arguing for Hedonism on the basis that, in the scope of the universe, humans have no purpose or goal, and so they have no need to pursue any principled action, only self-interest.
well,hendonism from a biblical perspective would be inbalanced to say the least. see,self-seeking of pleasure leads to greed, a more well understood negative. the philosophy itself seems inbalanced,and at the same time very limited,because of the sheer amount of protocols drawn into the big question…
yah,pleasure is ‘good’ pain is ‘bad’,but really the scope is so broad here i can’t really discuss it.
Yeah, I can only go so far thinking of a basis for something I think is baseless. I suppose one could also argue that pleasure is somehow tied to purpose, or that something is accomplished for a person in a lasting sense by fulfilling their desires, but those all sound even more ridiculous to me. I think we’d need a hedonist to have a fair explanation of the viewpoint’s foundation.
In my opinion, hedonism should be considered the “default” position, and other suggestions need to justify how and why they’re different and/or better.
Future Man wrote a post a little while ago on this topic… I forget the link though.
Basically if you’re going to argue hedonism, then you have to keep in mind that if harming others makes you feel pleasure you’re walking into dangerous territory.
Utilitarian territory.
For the most part though, I see nothing wrong with hedonism in a personal way. It’s when you get into social interaction and the like. It could be argued all social interaction is a deviation from the ‘default’ hedonistic standpoint. mmmm
I’ve thought about that point, and my response is this: even though some people derive pleasure from things most people would consider wrong, the said majority take (a kind of) pleasure in stopping them, so in a world where hedonism rules, the bad people still get stopped.
A pleasure in stopping them? Doubtful, if anything it’s a nuissance. Or are you talking of the “hero” that takes pleasure in foiling the bad plans of others?
I just meant that if some guy wants to live alone and be a sick weirdo, I don’t really care. It’s when he starts interacting with other people is there the problem comes in.
But yeah… I wouldn’t advise people to pursue hedonism.
You begin to answer Somber Angel’s question on Hedonism, but realize it’s going to be a troublesome and time consuming endeavor, so you stop and watch the Match of the Day.
A very selfish, hedonistic thing to do.
I think you just gave the most concise and elegant response to any question ever asked on ILP.
I love it in The Screwtape Letters where Screwtape rages that Christians are a bunch of hedonists.
You probably mean something like the philosophy of Epicureanism. (Lucretious is the only one I’ve read, and he highly places intellectual pleasures and avoids any excesses of pleasure which might destroy future pleasures.) I think this philosophy often goes with a materialistic stance: we are only matter moving around, so just enjoy it while you can. Is there a better argument for it?