Have you read David Pearce? He's very relevant to modern Hedonism and suffering-focused utilitarianism, despite not being referenced in this (otherwise quite good) video.
For good in hedonism I think it's worth asking whether things are good because they're pleasurable or if we find pleasure in doing good things. Such as how we feel good after doing something nice for someone.
@@tomtomtom6970literally every breath you take is to the detriment of others, just on a miniscule level. Problem is that these miniscule problems tend to add up, and that is how you get struggles in the modern day
@@heightdevil Every breath isn't to others' detriment. Every breath exchanges O2 for CO2. Too high of a CO2 level is bad for you, but we humans seem to be living in good harmony with the natural world in terms of our atmospheric composition. The oceanic cyanobacteria and plants and such produce more than enough O2 to keep all of us breathing for the forseeable future
As a hedonist with a great deal of thought put into it, the swine argument and experience machine aren't issues for me. Swine argument: How should I know if being a well-kept pig is great or not when I've never been one? Who cares if the pig is just as well off as I am or even better? I can't become a pig so it doesn't matter. Why must being a human be better than being a pig, ya speciesist? Granted I'm sure most people wouldn't accept my position so easily, but the explanation for that could easily be explained as being that people see the swine argument as being a valid opposition because it feels good to think that "I'm better off than a pig." That sense of superiority is once again evidence of a hedonistic desire- feeling better than others. The Experience Machine: Gimme that machine! Again I'm sure most people wouldn't agree, but again this can be explained by people having the hedonistic craving to feel like they're better than that. One can imagine someone saying as a part of their retort "I wouldn't succumb to such a machine because my REAL experiences in life are BETTER than something artificial." This is said in an age where virtual reality is about to become a big thing (as judged by the hype of the oculus) and a growing excitement builds for the potentials of upcoming AIs. It's just our pleasure from feeling superior. tl;dr: Both counterarguments to hedonism can easily be spun into support for hedonism by explaining their existence as a consequent to our desire to feel genuinely superior (which is a mental state humans quite enjoy). Hell I'm even defending hedonism here to feel rationally superior.
Exactly. One to one what I was thinking. The only reason some people would not want to be in the "Experience Machine" is because they would feel that they fool themselves in some way, or just like every other animal they wouldn't want to loose control over themselves. And also there's the fear that while you'r chilling in that machine, the people you love in real life can be going trough hard times, and you don't want to leave them alone in that kind of situations. This said, the "Experience Machine" is 100% acceptable if you don;t have anybody you care about.
Xoren Petrosyan I wouldn't enter the machine but I don't agree at all with the superiority argument. I see no value in a life entirely filled with pleasure if you have no positive impact or influence on the lives of others because you've spent all your time trapped inside a machine. Yes you could have whatever you wanted, but ultimately it would be an empty existence devoid of meaning. Besides part of the enjoyment of life is the struggle, if something requires effort to achieve you have a much greater appreciation of it likewise without experiencing sadness you can't appreciate joy. It creates the same sort of problem children of rich parents have, they already have everything they could ever want but is that really enough to make you truly happy? Honestly that experience machine sounds incredibly depressing to me
" but ultimately it would be an empty existence devoid of meaning" Exactly, there is no meaning, so the most meaningful thing left to do i to enjoy life as much as possible. As of permanent pleasure being non-satisfactory, the machine provides you with happiness, so you can't be unsatisfied by definition. It's hard to wrap your head around this argument, but it's a really deep one.
The pig argument is a very simplified version of the full counter imo. If pleasure is the definitive line between good and bad, then the relative experiential differences between even the likes of the rich and poor means "good" in every sense of the word is purely subjective, and therefore there is no "bad" -- only extremes of a spectrum of good. In other words you could substitute the pig with a man, but place that man in a controlled environment with a fixed measure of pleasure. If the pig argument fails, then it means there is nothing bad about slavery as long as the slave is not made aware of higher pleasures. Yet the sole fact that there exists a higher form of pleasure means it cannot be truly "good" as a slave, and that it is completely a subjective thing rather than pleasure being intrinsically good. For the machine argument, in order for there to be pleasure, there must be some measure of pain to contrast and give that feeling. In other words, the machine would end up simulating life as it is and therefore makes plugging into the machine redundant.
Hunter Paul hedonism is interesting and certainly a fun way to live but my problem is that pleasure and pain are subjective. a person incapable of feeling pleasure or pain would never really know that pain is bad or pleasure is good. if everyone doesn't get pleasure or the same amount of pleasure from the same thing, like beating a video game, is the game really good? if things that cause pleasure are good by definition then yes, but if some people don't like that game, then what?
"Besides, if it’s lack of authenticity makes it worse, wouldn’t that be making it less pleasurable?" Only if good means just pleasure and this guy doesn't agree with it in the first place.
Apart from the notion that authenticity is pleasurable, because awareness brings a sense of self-satisfaction, there is also an element of autonomy in authenticity - the idea that 'doing what you will' comes full circle to hedonism.
@@dodec8449 What exactly *is* authenticity? Because I'm not entirely sure the Virtual World isn't Authentic. It's certainly *different* but I most definitely "know the origin" of the Virtual World. The Pleasures of a Virtual World are Authentically Virtual. I'm pretty sure that *in most cases* the preferred state would be (and in fact, is) a partially virtual world. Where you can plug in and out at will (because humans prefer to have control over our bodies). Some exceptions apply. Namely people who are paralyzed (or something similar). In the case where the only other option is boredom and the inability to communicate a permanent plug in may be preferred. Especially if it would allow you to send and receive authentic messeges with your loved ones. Is it better to sit by a virtual fire with virtual avatars of your real family if the only alternative is to sit in a Hospital without being able to communicate? What it the question was to a Sex Slave? You can be free in a virtual world, or go back to your shitty life. In such a case Virtual Pleasure can very well trump IRL Pain. Remember: just because your life is better than fantasy, doesn't mean everyone's is. And strangely enough... even the people with the happiest lives will watch a movie or read a book that puts them in some virtual shoes for a bit.
The idea of katastematic hedonism from epicurus reminds me a little of Buddhims, if you get rid of desire you will have a good life. And about the experience machine, I believe there was an experiment conducted with rats that had some electrodes plug into their brains and were given two switches, one would give them food the other would stimulate the pleasure center of their brain. If I recall correctly those rats died of starvation. I wonder what would happen if the same would be done to people, a button the would just stimulate our pleasure center of the brain. I find it hard to believe that tons of people wouldn't end up like the rats. Also If you define hedonism the way Parfit does, I do not see why the pig or the good machine are a problem. If you said to someone "if you plug into this machine you would be in your preferred mental state always...." I can't really see why they should refuse to plug themselves in. And regarding the pig problem, ¿why is it a problem? the key thing is that you are always in your prefered mental state always. what difference does it make, the pig is in their peak mental state and so are you, by definition you can't improve, if it doesn't improve you wouldn't change to another one, so in the end that would make all the top zen-like mental states equivalent (the only difference is that every species would have their own). That for me means that all the pleasure is equivalent, you are only ending up with another question "is it better to be a pig than a human?" And if you tell me that both of the subjects are in the "machine" it is a meaningless question since they can't improve by definition.
Now to actually get to Parfit. Okay, pleasure is strictly defined as anything you can get your desires to believe is good. Therefore, anything you seem to want is not filtered by the outside world and you can become happy by achieving yourself. Then ultimate absoluteness(concreteness and solidarity) is achieved. This furthers absolute knowledge of oneself. Virtue=knowledge. Good=happiness. Your life therefore is good. What is bad is others detrimenting your rational mind. By twisting it, mixed messages are sent to your desires, furthering conflict. This conflict is yourself attempting to make the external you, as said before. Your mind already believes it has all knowledge and this hindrance of self-knowledge creates conflict. Your mind is intrinsically happy;your desires are in absolute harmony and knowledge. Your rational mind, a manifestation of your desires are not and you need to fix this. Therefore, there is conflict and ignorance. There is separateness. Everything around you is this universal desire. Singular beings are the manifestation of it trying to find harmony. When it finishes, it will achieve absoluteness. My work is(hopefully) done. I'm welcome to criticism and want it directly, if you please. Olly, I've got your answer.
I think Nietzsche would disagree. For him obstacles, which are often undesirable and unpleasant in the moment, are important and useful in the process of personal growth and positive evolution. If you are in that machine or addicted to that drug then you will encounter no obstacles and therefore never have opportunities for growth or evolution.
+Robert Wofford The resolution of frustration is as much a pleasure as getting high. The problem here is that in a closed-circuit utopia where you're always "high," can you then still adapt that as the new normal? If you can, then is there a way to increase the high to a cap where you never adapt, or will you always adapt? If you can reach a pleasure cycle where you never feel you come down from the high, you will never feel normal and therefore will never have to seek out a new high. If you adapt, however, the infinite stability of that kind of life might make the mind restless again, and then the Matrix happens. You try and find out why everything is so stable and then attribute a "bad" property to the purveyor of that stability so that the process of escaping it or defeating it becomes a new high.
conquering these obstacles is still desirable; it just competes with other desires. Humans have a greater ability to simultaneously hold different desires and to withhold gratification of some immediate pleasures for future ones
LOL I’ve been an opiate IV user 6 years straight cause I’m into a more hedonistic lifestyle & I guarantee pretty much all addictions drugs or activities. Have many many obstacles.
The metaphor of the Machine doesn't do it for me, 'cause I don't think you can *make a decision* a about pleasure that lies in the *future* - you could call that 'desire', but I think most would agree that desire isn't a rational process -. All you can do about pleasure is *reflect/meditate* about events in the *past*. So what I would say is: "put me in, let me *experience* the in-Machine-life and take me out. Then i'll be able to reflect about the life inside and outside the Machine and decide which one is best. I can't know if I'd prefer to be a pig 'cause have never been a pig. I can't choose properly. Experience is the only valuable data one can get about pleasure.
Hey Abigail! I was thinking about humanism recently and decided to give it a search on youtube and this gem popped up. Thank you for your thoughtfulness in your explanations and responses and I'm happy to see where you are now vs where you were when you made this video. Thanks for being awesome and I look forward to seeing what new things are in store for you in the next 7 years!
I want to address the “problem” of whether we should want to be a pig. If someone would prefer to be an unhappy human to a happy pig, they should have good reasons for expecting others to feel that way. I for one would rather be happy, and I don’t see what’s so bad about being a pig
I wouldn’t have traded my harder life for a good one, and it is because the awareness that comes with experience is more valuable in and of itself than just pleasure. Pleasure in ignorance without responsibility is like being a pig.
My argument against hedonism is the following: imagine the activity you like doing the most. If you had the opportunity to ONLY do that one activity forever, would you? I wouldn’t, because I think a variety of experience is more valuable than optimizing pleasure.
Found this through it being embedded in a powerpoint by my teacher! I've been a fan of you for a bit, it was a fun little moment to see an old video of yours in school materials
My problem with Nozick's "Experience Machine" is that there are contradictory pleasures, both pleasures are equal but you can't experience them both. For example: To me it is pleasurable to "know the truth", but if the truth is "hard to digest" / unpleasurable (e.g. learning that one were wrong the whole time or that one''s life is meaningless) there is no right choice, whether the machine should or shouldn't let me know. A way to get around this problem is to quantify pleasure very precisely and choose the "better one" or, if they are exactly equal, to "flip a coin". Another question is how the machine achieves it's goal to cause the "maximal pleasure". Biologically, pleasure is just the release of hormones like endorphin and the resulting stimulation. A machine which would put me on a constant overdose of endorphins would cause more pleasure than I could ever experience in any other way. This is just being 24/7 on drugs, which barely anyone, who didn't try it and got physically or psychically addicted, would want. But if the machine would simulate the world (or universe) for one, which one desires the most, way more people would opt in. So the question whether you would want to live in a, for you, perfect world or whether you would want to experience maximal pleasure are very different ones.
Stew Taylor But how am I supposed to decide whether I would like to live in such a machine or not, if I don't know anything about it? If it would simulate my perfect world, I would most certainly say yes. But if it would be an automated drug injector, I would say no. And I'm certain that most people would agree with me on those two choices. I'm not asking for technical details or criticising the practicality of the hypothetical machine; I just can't decide whether I would opt in or not, if I don't get any information.
the machine is supposed to simulate the life that you want. Even if it did use drugs to create those feelings of pleasure in your life from you doing things that you WANT, it wouldn't matter because it is still achieving the goal of simulating whatever world that you get pleasure from being in/experiencing. im explaining this using "preferential hedonism' as the defintion of pleasure. so now the question is for you, do you care that it is an illusion?
philosophy works in not answering questions, but posing more questions to answer your questions. To get you to think about the answer for yourself. This is why I like philosophy. It trains the mind and feeds it to sustain itself free from the tendrils of oppression from forces of manipulation.
I think pleasure is what makes life good for everyone. In some way or another people all give up to it dont they? Even religious people have the fundamental idea that they can live lives without pleasure and do gods will because a infinite paradise of pleasure will await them. The fact that they give up current pleasures for future ones still seems like they are just living life for pleasure. In a way we all are hedonists and it is the nature of life we are picky about what type, in what way and when we will find it.
Good point. The religious fundamentalist is as much a hedonist as the guy who does cocaine with hookers every night. My opinion is that all humans are hedonist because everyone wants pleasantness. What type of pleasantness varies just as people like different flavors of ice cream. So the strict nun who lives an austere life of abstinence and feels good and holy about herself is seeking the pleasure and enjoyment of that holy feeling she gets. It makes her feel good. Thus, although she doesn't realize it, she is as much a hedonist as the guy with the hookers and coke. Everyone is seeking pleasantness and that makes us all hedonist, just in different ways.
Not really. I've been following Jesus for a while now and have truly come to light what it's all about. It's about changing how much you value selfish pleasure, and placing it in taking pleasure in things that are mutual or selfless. I've started to get to a point where I cannot take pleasure in any activity where I am not doing something for someone else. Nearly all of my pleasure is starting to be put into love. This has given me a completely new perspective on life and a profound care for others. Then you might say "how is it selfless if you take pleasure in helping others?". Well to get there you have to sacrifice all of your selfish pleasures(which are more than we think) and in it comes a suffering from their abstinence, and you blindly follow your selflessness regardless of the suffering it causes, and the prize is a freedom from the suffering for you no longer seek selfish things and thus there is no pleasure in them. Jesus didn't lie when he said that he was the truth and the life.
Not true. If you're a true believer, you don't do good things just to end up in paradise. That's fake, selfish and it doesn't work in the eyes of The Lord. Instead you do things because you try to purify your soul. Not for the sake od the achievement or pleasure, but for the sake of the very belief that god intended so. However, I'm not really that type of believer, I believe that If it's possible, god intended it, and I hate myself because I want to be "pure" but instead I'm cursed, nothing's ever enough for me and I only live for the moments of pleasure. xD
Yeah but that is the unfortunate implication of the heaven and hell system honestly, I mean you can purify your soul and do all that put at the same time still strive for the pleasure of heaven as a motivate for genuine faith. I'm an atheist so what the hell do I know just a thing to note you can have selfish and selfless intentions both at the same time and I don't see how that's any less valid.
I learnt about hedonism at the bathhouse. As happy as a bunch of pigs in mud. The caveat being, meaning must be expertly buried deep inside and not let out to play.
I heard something that sparked my interest in the subject so I looked it up and found this. Oh, it's Philosophy Tube. I like that channel. I click on it and wonder for a good few seconds who the fuck is on my screen.
Overall good vid. I like that you mentioned Epicurus' different kinds of pleasures (abiding-katastematic and dynamic-kinetic pleasures), which can lead people to planning their hedonic regimen, HOWEVER you didn't go into the divisions of desires into natural & necessary, nat but not necessary, and neither natural or necessary and therefore empty, and to be easily discarded. THIS IS THE TRUE KEY TO THE GOOD LIFE, it's not just understanding the end that nature has established for us according to the Epicurean Masters. A person can not carry out hedonic calculus properly and maximize the benefits and minimize the losses, without first doing the introspective work to discern these things.
I hope you delve deeper into these matters in a future video! Epicurus is SUPER important to understand the science of being happy, and his views have been vindicated by Dan Gilbert and other researchers in the science of happiness whose positive psychology theories are Epicurean by another name.
This is a great video to kickstart a discussion or a springboard for broader and deliberate brainstorming. I like the simplified way of presenting the topic. I think I had watched this twice already. Thanks again.
0:24 You mentioned that only pleasure and pain have value (in Hedonism). You kinda skipped over the pain part and only talked about pleasures. Could you explain the value of pain in Hedonism? Or point me in a direction so I can read up on it. Love your videos! Thank you! :)
Thank you for posting. I enjoyed the video - it was clear and succinct. In response to your question: Buddhist philosophy describes life in 10 different states, from least desireable to most. Pleasure, or rapture is only number 6. Number 10 is Buddhahood, or enlightenment and is manifested through acts of compassion in number 9, the life state of the Boddhisatvva. The 13th century Japanese monk, Nichiren, taught that all people can manifest the life state of the Buddha instantly, by chanting Nam Myoho Renge Kyo.
I think that the only way that a person could reasonably object to living in the experience machine (because it is the only distinction) is because their life would not be 'real'. Anything they accomplish would not actually have been done. This forces me to conclude that people must value their accomplishment more than pleasure. There are many possible reasons for this, some more interesting than others, but I want to quickly outline two here: 1. The value of living a 'real' life stems from a person's desire to make a contribution, a mark, in the universe before they are gone. This could be motivated by a form of altruism - wanting to make a 'real' difference in people's lives - or by a need to do something to be remembered by, to be immortal in some way. In this case then the fear of death is a greater motivator than pleasure, which makes sense, which is why I like this idea. There's an idea I like even more though. 2. It's undeniable that people take pleasure in their creations.There are many reasons why someone may create something, but in almost all cases it is, mainly, because they enjoy it. This in mind, remember that the only difference between the experience machine and real life is that in the machine any accomplishments are not actually 'real'. One could only create things virtually. While in the machine one would forget that, but from an outside perspective one would not be able to truly take pleasure in their creations. This means that the pleasure of appreciating one's actions or creations must be a more desirable pleasure than any experience. In this case the experience machine is not an case against hedonism, but in fact possibly an argument for Mill's Utilitarianism. Obviously Mill's idea about experts deciding what pleasure is higher is faulty, perhaps we all have individual subjective criteria. These were just some ideas that I had. Thoughts? Criticisms? Also, how many objects are there please? I'm pretty confident there can't be more than seven :P.
Imagine a man said man has two personalities they each control the body for 12 hours a day they are now split into two has the number of people increased or decreased lets say it increased now there are two people spawned from one mind now imagine a man dreaming of himself and another the first scenario has 1 brain of set processing power able to generate 2 people of equal intelligence who have 2 separate methods of thinking what if there is no difference between the two except for duration and layer of reality now imagine a dream that lasts for a lifetime and is self consistent with set rules that don't change or contradict with people who are not you who are sentient and see you as not them what i just described is a world a reality if you were smart enough you could make a world as real as ours. the reality machine could make a world as real as ours now i ask you what's the difference between plugging in and teleporting. (This is assuming that the machine has enough processing power)
How many objects are there. Pleasure is a thing we desire. I would like to see where an argument about addiction fits into this discussion and how altruism works. It seems like we can rule out altruism that is simply gratifying. But in the case of addiction one may seek to eliminate the addictive behavior for the sake of an other. The addiction islikely to be more desirable than the gratification from ending the addiction. I feel the situation is iffy.
The definition of what pleasure entails is paramount. We have the two categories of physical and mental pleasure/pain. The actual meaning reference of what a pleasure is needs expansion. Is it just an emotion, a physical feeling? Is victory over difficulties, the expression of courage, accomplish, relational love for instance a pleasure? Those sort of feelings are concomitant with something to achieve, overcome, endure and win out. THUS pleasure as only positive, or pain equating the negative is a false dichotomy. The MEANING of pain and/or pleasure is contextual. Humans often choose painful difficult things to confront. Why? Because of their greater perceived meaning within a wider context. I prefer a wider existential contextual pursuit of the "good". Who defines this for an individual? The introduction of moral choices associated with hedonism is a whole other field of sources of ethical meanings. Thank you for vid.
A reason for the experience machine to not give a person the give a person the good life is that failure can make success more satisfying. No one wants to fail to do something. But successfully doing something you failed at in the past feels amazing. The experience machine could not give a person that feeling because it needs failure or not being able to get a desire to happen.
I’d rather be a contented slug, about to be crushed under foot, than to be an immortal deity, should it be a miserable one. Ultimately, happiness is all that matters.
It appears that the video on suicide is gone; I didn't know it existed until the end of THIS video, and I've been watching all of the videos on this channel in chronological order.
Yeah, I hadn't realized he had done a suicide video this far back, but I would assume he probably took the earlier one off after doing the 2018 one on suicide and mental health since that one is just... there really isn't any need for an earlier one after that one
I think you're right on the money when you stated that despite you've written papers defending preference hedonism, you're waiting for a proper argument to come along and change your mind. I propose that one may take into account the perspective from Epicurus and go with the idea that there are kinetic and katastematic pleasures. However, the fulfillment of the katastematic ones, leaves one with the possibility (less distractions) to pursue the opportunity for development, the chance to be better, to evolve, to transcend one's previous limitations and become a higher version of oneself. I believe that is in itself the reason for our existence here on earth: to evolve. That evolution doesn't come without overcoming challenges, but overcoming those releases a feeling that goes beyond pleasure. If I'm not mistaken Tesla called that feeling "higher than love". That's why even if you're proven wrong, you'll be happier for that had you expand your mind, your perspective and ultimately yourself. The regular, mundane, pleasures are all well and fine and should be experienced. One should, however, indulge so much in them that they stop being an experience and become the objective.
I imagine that the skepticism of plugging in is the feeling of loss of your first life. I doubt anyone would object to a perfect pleasure life happening to them outside of a matrix. A natural version
There was that famous thought experiment by a psychologist I believe (I forgot the name) where he talks about living a life full of pleasure if it meant being ignorant towards certain things like for example, the fact that your best friend and your lover are having an affair. Most people would choose to know about something like that rather than to live in blissful ignorance of it, which means that most of us agree that there are more meaningful things in life than pleasure. Or, as Kurt Cobain put it - "I miss the comfort in being sad".
"Any state that is desirable" can steer alarmingly close to "Brave New World" territory, though. Careful with that one. I tend more towards feeling that sadness is necessary to happiness, anger to love, all that balance stuff. I imagine you've seen "Inside Out"? That idea.
Thank you so much, good work. In my opinion, we made to/ live to fulfil our desires and pleasures, and feel joyful (in a moralistic way) . We just feel confuse about how to achieve that, because we have to experience it through the human body/condition, therefor increasing our level of awareness and consciousness is important, we have the capacity to learn from our mistakes and those of other's, everything has good/bad, nothing in life of one dimension. We always have choices no matter what, freedom is distinguish us from other beings. Thank you.
I quite agree that there are lower and higher pleasures in life. And higher pleasures, as I've found, always concern with spiritual. And for me, lower pleasures are going against higher pleasures, and that requires me to live a more intentional life
In my opinion, life inside the Experience Machine necessarily must be good for any individual. This is because 1. for hedonists, no matter how you define pleasure, we can simply replicate that experience in the machine and upgrade it indefinitely. For example, if you believe that overcoming obstacles and failures are fundamental components of true pleasure, then we can simply simulate a world which provides you with just the right obstacles to elicit that pleasure with more intensity. 2. for non-hedonists, the same argument can be made for any other experience in life which you define as "good".
I have to say something about benevolent despotism, though. People have desires, their agendas, if you will. If these are in conflict with equal power, with everyone thinking they're right, aren't they just getting nothing done? Also, if they do, that means they agree. That means they are of one mind about it. If they have different desires for doing so, this means the same thing. They're in conflict. If they are all of one mind and one desire(highly unlikely), they contribute their power to a whole to get something done. Now, if this happens, what is the difference between this and having a benevolent despot doing everything. I understand the risk of one person holding all control, but this is based on opinion(typically public, sometimes open or secret political) and security.
I like to think of our conscious experiences as a landscape that has peaks and pits. Some pits are deeper than others, and some peaks higher than others. The pits represent pain, or any experience that is deemed undesirable. The peaks represent pleasure or experiences that one finds desirable. There also are experiences that are neutral, I.e. neither bad nor good. They are similar to what we would consider a rock by the side of a road to experience if it were a conscious entity. For me, the experience of happiness is represented by only one of the peaks. There are many other experiences that are different from happiness, such as thrill, sensual pleasure, the discomfort experienced when exercising and others, which also represent peaks. I cannot make the claim that seeking sensual pleasure is objectively better than seeking happiness, nor can I assert otherwise. It's all a subjective preferance in the end. Each of us has freewill to choose his conscious experiences. Each of us is free to construct his hierarchical arrangement of valued experinces.
Philosophy Tube It is a very tricky topic because it involves a slippery tautology. First of all, I would like to say that my views, in terms of what pleasure is, are compatible with the ideas of Derek Parfit (I have not read any of his work, I just thought that what I got from your description of his ideas is very sensible, and I hold the same opinion, too). Given that we are talking in a context were Parfit is right about what pleasure is, there is a problem with the very question this video is concerned with. Since the question is 'What do we need to live the ''good'' life?', we cannot have a spectrum of answers, among which, one is ''pleasure'', and that is because the word ''pleasure'' , by the definition we agreed on in this context, is predestined to stand as a synonym (or a description) of the many possible answers of this question and not as a possible answer itself. In this context, ''money'', ''love'', ''successful career'', and answers of this sort is what we are looking for. In other words, in a Parfit-dictated context, the question 'What do we need to live the ''good'' life?' is equal to the question 'What aspects of life fall under the definition of pleasure?', 'What is the extension of the definition of pleasure?'. So, what follows from that is that we argue concerning what is to be taken as ''pleasure'' and what is not, which is entirely senseless, as moral judgements are not genuine propositions of logic, i.e. they're not to be examined as true or false. Two or more different opinions on this topic can coexist without contradicting each other, as consistency is to be looked for, not in a transpersonal, but in a personal scale. Additionally, in this context, someone who argues that there is more in life than just pleasure only finds himself holding this opinion because he has misunderstood the language we have agreed to discuss with. He says ''pleasure'' and means the negative connotations you talk about in your video. He says ''something more'' and means ''something other than the negative connotations'', when, in fact, what he would then give you as a definition of his ''something more'' is automatically appropriated in Parfit's definition of pleasure ..as pleasure. I would appreciate feedback because I am very interested in discussing the topic :)
I have a problem with katastematic hedonism. There is an idea in psychology that states humans need only three things to remain sane, these things are something to do, someone to love, and something to look forward to. The third of these can be equated more or less to hope. This idea would seem to say that humans need the hope of fulfilling an unsatisfied desire in order to remain sane. I have i little experience with this. I have a pretty good life and at times I have been completely free of desire (or at least any desire i could come up with) and these have been some of the lowest points in my life. The complete lack of desire makes life seem as if it isn't worth living simply because there is no chance of it getting better. So it is my personal belief that having everything actually brings pain rather than pleasure.
Here's a new topic idea that is on my mind. Is hedonism just new age spirituality for philosophers. Because those views do suggest that spiritual bypassing can be a threat to this world view.
I would prefer the experience machine. I wouldn't force anyone else to enter (or exit) the experience machine. I like Parfit's idea of preference hedonism.
+synchronium24 My ideal preference is the experience without the memory wipe and with the clear and easy ability to exit the machine, but of course I imagine that's most people. Choosing between chaos and stability is like choosing between breathing air or drinking water.
I know this is a million years old (4), but there is another look at the trapped in the same pleasurable day. For me, knowing more/having more experience is pleasurable. So reliving the same day stops the # of total days of experience, where as not reliving the day provides more observed/remembered time. So, an infinite life of daily mind wipes *is* less pleasurable than living one day more.
What makes a human life go well? This is very objective. A life going well is something that is decided upon by ones mind. Nothing is naturally good and bad, (this is hard to argue for) but through sensory input and comparisons people naturally judge things either good or bad. Taking into consideration that the one true thing humans have control over, is their outlook on life and personal emotions, one could argue that the good life is completely dependent on ones ability to control his or her emotions. To gain control over ones emotions, they must learn that being in an unpleasant state of mine, often leads to some of the best experiences one can have. Like wise, the individuals that know how to control impulses often times lives a more productive meaningful life. Most individuals would agree that having a head-ache is not a desirable state of mine, but their body is telling them that something is wrong, so how could this head-ache be bad?
What achievements? Most people are just going to be 9 to 5 stiffs their entire life no matter how hard they strive towards a goal because its just how life goes sometimes. I have no problem with ideology of hedonism because at least it gives some people something close to what is a meaning in life even if it is momentary pleasure.
How did I miss this when it came out? Damn you, RUclips feed! I think that one of the things to take into account with regard to Hedonism is that empathy relies on it. It generally feels good to help other people (for example, hugs lead to a release of oxytocin, which feels good and leads to greater levels of trust). +Philosophy Tube Thanks for the heads up on Evaluative Hedonism, that will be useful in the paper I'm writing.
Parfit's conception of preference satisfaction seems to assume a deep rationale for one's actions, if they aren't for pleasure. Where the hedonist can simply point to levels of pleasure actually obtained, the preference satisfier is at a loss as to what is actually being maximized, considering peoples preferences do change.
I agree with the benevolent despotism thing but believe it should be a temporary transitional period until a democratic republic can be formed. This is why I tend to be supportive of the Egyptian Military coup. They need an ounce of dictatorship to keep anti-democratic parties out of power until they can ensure a healthy democratic republic at the end of the transitional period. The middle east and North Korea both would require such a benevolent dictatorship as a transition into democratic republicanism.
After watching all the philosophy concepts and ideas of people from the past, i now realize that people tend to look for the meaning of life with different views. These great minds that searched for meaning of life points back to aristotle and earlier philosphers saying that there should be a higher knowledge that we cannot comprehend. Kind of like the 4th dimension. Therefore, to think about its meaning is to think of it outside of the human cognitive..
I am a hedonist officially, but with several deontological general rules because I think this actually leads to more sustainable pleasure in the long term, in real life (feeling like you have no autonomy causes lots of suffering, as anyone being forced to do anything will tell you). I think the good thing about humanity and society is that through intellectual rigor we enable situations through which we can have greater pleasure and reduce how often we encounter suffering. So intellectual rigor is an investment of suffering and/or lack of happiness (at least through the opportunity cost of foregoing an activity of pure bliss) that can and often does result in lack of suffering at a later time. Domesticated pigs only live in the bliss that they do because we apply significant skill and labor to ensure their comfort. Without the toil that comes with that there would be no pigs in pens. And there would be no royalty without such toil as well, some of whom are arguably the human equivalent of pampered pets. So living like royalty would be okay if there were a class of laborers (genetically engineered and/or mechanical) that are incapable of suffering as a result of laboring for others. Otherwise the suffering of the wider population would outweigh the bliss of those they toil for, which would be bad, hedonistically, for the society at large.
Now for dear Parfit. First of all, the distinction between pleasures only are the difference between higher necessities. You need to eat. Also, ice cream is pleasing to you. The fact that something you have to do is pleasurable is a psychological win-win. On the other hand, your connection to your favorite song helps you, but is not as important as the ice cream, at least inherently. They both help you, however, but one is more seriously needed. Intrinsically, they both are wanted, but your mind, your reasoning abilities, tell your desires that(only one thing is processed at a time) you should eat. Although, if someone tells you that eating is not important and you believe them, this overturns your reasoning abilities' conclusion. However, you still need to eat. This person tells you that music is now important. You now sublimate your desires through this guy. Your reasoning abilities inform you that he is to be trusted, as he now take the on-pedestal position of food. You now listen to the song. This is going back to pragmatic truth.
I'm all for more metaphysics. I just began studying for university entrance exams, and metaphysics is a core part of the textbook :) ...Although, so is philosophy of religion.
gebedijahh Philosophy of Religion is my JAM. I love it. I try to keep it mainly off the channel though, just because lots of it is already out on RUclips and it tends to get a bit contentious.
Philosophy Tube Yeah, there sure is no short supply of it here, however the quality of it is another matter in itself. The article on the exam material is a quick sight into the problem of evil, and mostly focuses on the dichotomy that the Theodicy seemingly poses. I would like to see a more of a humanistic viewpoint on religion, something like Alain de Botton does, but supported by more rigid arguments, and less poetic presentation (as entertaining as it is). Would the metaphysics video perhaps be about the 'Problem of the many' by Peter Unger?
The ONLY reason why I would be hesitant to go into the pleasure matrix is that I do not wish to cause those who would miss me the pain of losing me. If everyone I loved was willing to come with me (i.e entering the machine doesn’t cause any pain to OTHERS) then sign me up right this second!
I'm crossed between hedonism and nihilism... In morality, I'm a moral nihilist... I don't see pleasure as the "highest good" as Google mentions in its definition of "hedonism". I do see it as the "proper aim of the human life" though just out of logic. The alternatives to pleasure is non-pleasure or perhaps simply being content and so pleasure just seems like the most optimal choice if viewed in a game theory sort of payoff matrix... So would that mean that pleasure has intrinsic value? I'm pretty sure that when I'm dead it really won't matter so either way when I'm dead I'd be a nihilist, but as I am not dead would I be a hedonist? Pleasure won't have any intrinsic value to me when I'm not around to experience it...
I couldn't discuss hedonism and morals without mentioning that Ayn Rand based her philosophy on hedonism. I became convinced of this from John Galt's epic speech, where he insists that morals are for the sake of achieving happiness and any other goal of morals is a form of death. This always makes me wonder how much of our economic system was created by people who follow her philosophy. This is probably more of a concern in the U.S. than elsewhere.
I think that the ultimate good is achievement, and sometimes pleasure is the goal you want to achieve. This is different from achievement granting pleasure because achievibg a set goal may not at all be pleasurable in the end (vengeance) though perhaps the idea that it is pleasurable can be encouraging
I enjoy the idea of deist evaluative hedonism, because if one argues from a creationist's rulebook, religion has no real place for asceticism, and self-repressive behavior is the hallmark of many religions. There's an old prayer from the early Christian church in Turkey that I particularly like, called the "Heretic's Prayer" - which probably says something about the state of my soul, honestly XD - that was involved in an old story: In one of the early monasteries, a young upstart monk gave a sermon from the point of view of God, the initial statement of which (and more probably, its theology) got him excommunicated, "for the purposed of this sermon, I am God" not flying particularly well with the Church fathers. In the sermon, he said something that caused the Abbot to storm out in a rage, and it was as follows... "All pleasures are My sacred rituals, with the proviso that they harm none, not yourself and not another." In this, of course, one can see traces of thought involved in the region's devotion to Astarte-Isis, something that later was greatly influential in Wiccan theology, with which the Christian churches are additionally still highly uncomfortable. That said, I think the thought is highly.... revelatory. (bwahahaha). First off, the statement is a religious release of its constituents into a world of experiences; the idea of a Creator God informing you to avoid the creation is like a painter handing out blindfolds at the entrance to the art gallery. Herein is the idea that - if you, per se, love oranges - the moment of heightened experience in which you crack the peel, rough beneath your fingers, releasing that first puff of vapor; the first bite in which there is that explosion of liquid flavor; that moment of savoring the experience where you understand why, in some poetic sense, it is a fruit that's called a color... these all would be akin to an act of prayer, a moment of communion with whatever being or force instigated that experience, like sharing a moment with a painter from whom you are separated by centuries and kilometers. This is similar to the Buddhist idea of tathata, or, moments of "such-ness." Sufi mysticism has the interesting way of pursuing this state through whirling in circles like a child, the proverbial "whirling dervish" (though that has the other meditative goal of creating an inebriated state that removes one's faculties and replaces it with a larger impression of the movement of the galaxy, purportedly). The other item of interest in this statement, or prayer, is its caveat; namely, "with the proviso that they harm none, not yourself and not another." Perhaps one could call this conditional hedonism, a hedonism that pursues pleasure and/or joy while possessing rules or principles designed with the intent of minimizing the pain or sorrow caused by this pursuit as it affects yourself and others. Initially, the prayer sounds like a free-for-all of "earthly delights," but it's really not; it forces one to reflect on one's pleasures, and the assessment of whom they affect and how; an awareness of consequence, and a willingness to control the consequence through control of the experience. Perhaps in the paranoid, this could indeed result inadvertently in some manner of asceticism, if only out of the fear of affecting the world negatively (I believe this is the motivation and result of some versions of Jainism). I personally think that this is missing the exit and driving onward, still looking for some destination of equilibrium, but again, that's simply my opinion. Anyway, interesting thoughts.
Also, clap on the back for Mill. Ask an expert is the passive way to gain knowledge, sound familiar? The experts decide on the basis of pragmatic truth. This is what will serve the individual best. If I'm dying of diphtheria, and I ask an expert to pick between medicine and an apple for me, which do you think he'll say? There';s nothing else entering the picture of value,as you say, as pragmatic truth is a survival method for the self, which powers desire, differentiation between pleasure and pain. Checkmate.
With Nozick's explanation you brought up the Matrix, but I'd like to point out the film Vanilla Sky as well. It brings up the exact same issue. I've nothing else to say, except that I also think preference Hedonism is the way to go, and that I'd like the 'number of objects' subject for the next video. Thanks for yet another great video!
lol why is philosophy so complex. I can handle a complex calculus question/ mathematics, but this went over my head. I am trying to learn more about philosophy in a business context. Any book recommendations for a beginner, please?
Is pleasure what makes life good? What is good? Pleasure can only make life "good" if that is what good allows. (That makes sense right?) So are we trying to find the definition of good? But if pleasure makes something good that means pleasure is not good. For example, the definition of good cannot be feeling pleasure. this makes sense right? If we are trying to find the definition of good ignore the definition of good is pleasure part. So i guess my main question is, Are we trying to find the definition of good?
The simple answer to both thought experiments as they were put is that as a collectivist hedonist I would choose to remain in my current position in order to greater contribute to other people's pleasure. Now if the question is whether everybody should plug into the machine, I would say yes. As for everybody turning into pigs, I guess the total amount of pleasure in the world would increase with the transformation but I do think that humanity has the capacity to someday surpass that level. Therefore, not transforming is a valid long-term collectivist hedonist option.
For me, the key is not knowing that I made the decision to enter the experience machine. It could be an individual defect or a broader human function, but I think I would feel guilty to myself for taking "the easy way". I'd feel like my limitless pleasure was undeserved because I had not achieved it myself.
Olly, on answering on the comments of this video, many times you occur on saying "you can program anything on the experience machine and it erases the memory of you making the decision of entering in it". But that may not really be the point, right? The question "would you plug yourself on the machine?" refers to a hypothetical future, not a hypothetical past. When confronted with the decision of plugging yourself on the machine, you choose to do it (or not) independent of the fact that you will forget about it. The morality behind the decision of, for example, leaving your loved ones is confronted before going inside. Whatever takes effect after that is not part of the question. And that reasoning may shed a light on the argument of hedonism. The decision of hedonistic living can be put in perspective, not only the effect of the decision. Also, this shaves off a little bit of the idea of the "pureness" of pleasure and pain, as they would have to combine in complex ways to form moral and ethical values.
I assume those who would not want life in the pleasure machine would deny it because they want a life based in truth, but the desire for truth can just be classified as a hedonistic preference, which removes the challenge to hedonism.
Have you seen Gravity Falls? they sortof adress the pleasure machine thing really well (in the weirdmagedon episodes ). Rick and Morty somewhat brings up the subject in the m night shamaliens episode with Jerry being the happiest he's ever been in his life in a simulation... I think it's pretty cool that these ideas are making their way into popular media.
The problem with the machine scenario is that there's a difference when someone knows the current pleasure is real, versus knowing the machine pleasure will be fake but feel real. Of course a ton of people would choose the lesser real pleasure over the greater fake pleasure, because it makes them feel better to know they have the real pleasure over the fake pleasure, thereby making them feel better for making the right choice. The decision is still entirely short term pleasure based, it's just not as inherently objective and logical as 4:35 makes it out to be
Okay, hedonism.What if the difference between pleasure and real happiness is knowledge? That is to say, you ultimately want satisfaction of your desires. You have the tools of your mind to experience and manage this. When your mind is fully satisfied, all levels of "good" are satisfied. Suppose there were beings "above" us, beings of which minds were larger and required higher satisfaction, seeing our intellectual pursuits as we see the pig. One only cares about one's own desires, essentially. When these are fulfilled, one experiences the said katastematic pleasure, which is your own mind serving its ultimate purpose, a universal desire. When one experiences this pleasure, it can be attributed to such practices of intellectualism and meditation, things apart from desire that uses desire to achieve itself. I'd like any errors in this argument to be illuminated, so throw it all at me! Also, I think fate would be interesting, and we can relax our minds and recharge our brainpower for the next intellectual challenge.
I want to give a quick Feedback. The background music is reaaaally annoying and takes a lot of the pleasure from the video; yes, the video is pleasurable for me as any other audiovisual production; maybe be more thoughtful on the levels that you are mixing the transition sounds as they are pretty darn loud. The music you probably got from a common royalty-free website as I've heard it countless times so it also makes me pay more attention to the music than to the video itself.
I think hedonism's got it, and I also think it's the motivator for meaning. If you are willing to indulge in the pleasures of the body, then you can indulge in the pleasures of the good feelings of helping others, of giving yourself to a cause, and these longer, "larger" projects tend to yield more pleasure over time. A different sort of pleasure, but more overall. A life lived with a sense of purpose or meaning would probably net you the most pleasure coins. Don't search for meaning and ethical living in spite of hedonism, do it because of the hedonic payoff!
The idea of preference Hedonism is very appealing in terms of explaining situations such as watching a sad or scary film which is pleasurable to one person but isn't for another. From this, it seems that this theory is dependent on the psychology of an individual. What a person percieves to be good or not if from their own thinking and judgement. If we accept this then surely the 'good' life of a person is only good because it's their prefernces that make it good. For example, if you take a life a con artist who prefers to cheat and steal because of the pleasure it brings, which is good to the con artist, however is this a 'good' life that would appeal to all? I guess what I am trying to ask is a 'good life' necessary full of pleasure? I think this is where the idea of smut and excess comes to it, that pleasures comes over and above principles, yes it is pleasurable to have more money but would it be 'good' to gain this through cheating others in the example of the con artist. Not that I agree with this entirely, but it was my initial thought in terms of a preference pleasure-seeking 'good life'.
The con artist's life would be good *for them*, but it doesn't have to be the case that everybody would choose it. And it would be prudentially, though not necessarily morally, valuable.
If pleasure was "getting to the state of mind you want" keeping in mind the state of mind depends on your material state as well as your history. The are we not redefining good but not giving us any insight into goodness? Pleasure is good the same way that table is good, if I change the meaning of the word table enough!
![BLACK BAG - Official Trailer [HD] - Only in Theaters March 14](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Du0Xp8WX_7I/mqdefault.jpg)
Just spent the last 5 weeks learning about Hedonism in University and this is literally all of it
Have you read David Pearce? He's very relevant to modern Hedonism and suffering-focused utilitarianism, despite not being referenced in this (otherwise quite good) video.
I would jump in that virtual reality machine so hard it would break my pelvis but I wouldn't care.
John Smith What if in the experience machine there was another experience machine and you went in there? Experience inception
@@woofwoof7168 why does it matter
Pig
@@Robyamdama Very happy one 😊
@@AnaSchultz-kx9tqBut a pig regardless, and inherently lesser than the majority of human beings.
My knee-jerk reaction was, "I want to read these university papers you wrote!"
For good in hedonism I think it's worth asking whether things are good because they're pleasurable or if we find pleasure in doing good things. Such as how we feel good after doing something nice for someone.
I am a full on hedonist. Pursuit of pleasure is probably the most moral path in life, so long as it is not to the detriment to the pleasure of others.
which it most of the time always is
@@tomtomtom6970literally every breath you take is to the detriment of others, just on a miniscule level. Problem is that these miniscule problems tend to add up, and that is how you get struggles in the modern day
@@heightdevil by breathing people’s air away? I think not
@@heightdevil Every breath isn't to others' detriment. Every breath exchanges O2 for CO2. Too high of a CO2 level is bad for you, but we humans seem to be living in good harmony with the natural world in terms of our atmospheric composition. The oceanic cyanobacteria and plants and such produce more than enough O2 to keep all of us breathing for the forseeable future
Read the four Gospels, that's what life is supposed to look like
As a hedonist with a great deal of thought put into it, the swine argument and experience machine aren't issues for me.
Swine argument: How should I know if being a well-kept pig is great or not when I've never been one? Who cares if the pig is just as well off as I am or even better? I can't become a pig so it doesn't matter. Why must being a human be better than being a pig, ya speciesist?
Granted I'm sure most people wouldn't accept my position so easily, but the explanation for that could easily be explained as being that people see the swine argument as being a valid opposition because it feels good to think that "I'm better off than a pig." That sense of superiority is once again evidence of a hedonistic desire- feeling better than others.
The Experience Machine: Gimme that machine!
Again I'm sure most people wouldn't agree, but again this can be explained by people having the hedonistic craving to feel like they're better than that. One can imagine someone saying as a part of their retort "I wouldn't succumb to such a machine because my REAL experiences in life are BETTER than something artificial." This is said in an age where virtual reality is about to become a big thing (as judged by the hype of the oculus) and a growing excitement builds for the potentials of upcoming AIs. It's just our pleasure from feeling superior.
tl;dr: Both counterarguments to hedonism can easily be spun into support for hedonism by explaining their existence as a consequent to our desire to feel genuinely superior (which is a mental state humans quite enjoy). Hell I'm even defending hedonism here to feel rationally superior.
Exactly. One to one what I was thinking. The only reason some people would not want to be in the "Experience Machine" is because they would feel that they fool themselves in some way, or just like every other animal they wouldn't want to loose control over themselves. And also there's the fear that while you'r chilling in that machine, the people you love in real life can be going trough hard times, and you don't want to leave them alone in that kind of situations. This said, the "Experience Machine" is 100% acceptable if you don;t have anybody you care about.
Xoren Petrosyan I wouldn't enter the machine but I don't agree at all with the superiority argument. I see no value in a life entirely filled with pleasure if you have no positive impact or influence on the lives of others because you've spent all your time trapped inside a machine. Yes you could have whatever you wanted, but ultimately it would be an empty existence devoid of meaning. Besides part of the enjoyment of life is the struggle, if something requires effort to achieve you have a much greater appreciation of it likewise without experiencing sadness you can't appreciate joy. It creates the same sort of problem children of rich parents have, they already have everything they could ever want but is that really enough to make you truly happy? Honestly that experience machine sounds incredibly depressing to me
" but ultimately it would be an empty existence devoid of meaning"
Exactly, there is no meaning, so the most meaningful thing left to do i to enjoy life as much as possible. As of permanent pleasure being non-satisfactory, the machine provides you with happiness, so you can't be unsatisfied by definition. It's hard to wrap your head around this argument, but it's a really deep one.
The pig argument is a very simplified version of the full counter imo. If pleasure is the definitive line between good and bad, then the relative experiential differences between even the likes of the rich and poor means "good" in every sense of the word is purely subjective, and therefore there is no "bad" -- only extremes of a spectrum of good. In other words you could substitute the pig with a man, but place that man in a controlled environment with a fixed measure of pleasure. If the pig argument fails, then it means there is nothing bad about slavery as long as the slave is not made aware of higher pleasures. Yet the sole fact that there exists a higher form of pleasure means it cannot be truly "good" as a slave, and that it is completely a subjective thing rather than pleasure being intrinsically good.
For the machine argument, in order for there to be pleasure, there must be some measure of pain to contrast and give that feeling. In other words, the machine would end up simulating life as it is and therefore makes plugging into the machine redundant.
Hunter Paul hedonism is interesting and certainly a fun way to live but my problem is that pleasure and pain are subjective. a person incapable of feeling pleasure or pain would never really know that pain is bad or pleasure is good. if everyone doesn't get pleasure or the same amount of pleasure from the same thing, like beating a video game, is the game really good? if things that cause pleasure are good by definition then yes, but if some people don't like that game, then what?
That dude loses me assuming I wouldn't prefer to be a well-kept pig
HAHAHHAHA
I would totally plug into the matrix IF I knew absolutely that it would bring me more pleasure than real life!
"Besides, if it’s lack of authenticity makes it worse, wouldn’t that be making it less pleasurable?"
Only if good means just pleasure and this guy doesn't agree with it in the first place.
@Salty I can understand that intuitively. But can you put into words why authenticity is important?
Apart from the notion that authenticity is pleasurable, because awareness brings a sense of self-satisfaction, there is also an element of autonomy in authenticity - the idea that 'doing what you will' comes full circle to hedonism.
@Salty "Authenticity" is important because in the end it will lead to more pleasure.
@@dodec8449 What exactly *is* authenticity? Because I'm not entirely sure the Virtual World isn't Authentic. It's certainly *different* but I most definitely "know the origin" of the Virtual World. The Pleasures of a Virtual World are Authentically Virtual.
I'm pretty sure that *in most cases* the preferred state would be (and in fact, is) a partially virtual world. Where you can plug in and out at will (because humans prefer to have control over our bodies). Some exceptions apply. Namely people who are paralyzed (or something similar). In the case where the only other option is boredom and the inability to communicate a permanent plug in may be preferred. Especially if it would allow you to send and receive authentic messeges with your loved ones. Is it better to sit by a virtual fire with virtual avatars of your real family if the only alternative is to sit in a Hospital without being able to communicate?
What it the question was to a Sex Slave? You can be free in a virtual world, or go back to your shitty life. In such a case Virtual Pleasure can very well trump IRL Pain.
Remember: just because your life is better than fantasy, doesn't mean everyone's is. And strangely enough... even the people with the happiest lives will watch a movie or read a book that puts them in some virtual shoes for a bit.
The idea of katastematic hedonism from epicurus reminds me a little of Buddhims, if you get rid of desire you will have a good life.
And about the experience machine, I believe there was an experiment conducted with rats that had some electrodes plug into their brains and were given two switches, one would give them food the other would stimulate the pleasure center of their brain. If I recall correctly those rats died of starvation.
I wonder what would happen if the same would be done to people, a button the would just stimulate our pleasure center of the brain. I find it hard to believe that tons of people wouldn't end up like the rats.
Also If you define hedonism the way Parfit does, I do not see why the pig or the good machine are a problem.
If you said to someone "if you plug into this machine you would be in your preferred mental state always...." I can't really see why they should refuse to plug themselves in.
And regarding the pig problem, ¿why is it a problem? the key thing is that you are always in your prefered mental state always. what difference does it make, the pig is in their peak mental state and so are you, by definition you can't improve, if it doesn't improve you wouldn't change to another one, so in the end that would make all the top zen-like mental states equivalent (the only difference is that every species would have their own).
That for me means that all the pleasure is equivalent, you are only ending up with another question "is it better to be a pig than a human?"
And if you tell me that both of the subjects are in the "machine" it is a meaningless question since they can't improve by definition.
People have neglected feeding their childeren to play video games. I feel like the same would happen to people
Addicted human sometime starve themselves just to get a dose of the drug.
Now to actually get to Parfit. Okay, pleasure is strictly defined as anything you can get your desires to believe is good. Therefore, anything you seem to want is not filtered by the outside world and you can become happy by achieving yourself. Then ultimate absoluteness(concreteness and solidarity) is achieved. This furthers absolute knowledge of oneself. Virtue=knowledge. Good=happiness. Your life therefore is good. What is bad is others detrimenting your rational mind. By twisting it, mixed messages are sent to your desires, furthering conflict. This conflict is yourself attempting to make the external you, as said before. Your mind already believes it has all knowledge and this hindrance of self-knowledge creates conflict. Your mind is intrinsically happy;your desires are in absolute harmony and knowledge. Your rational mind, a manifestation of your desires are not and you need to fix this. Therefore, there is conflict and ignorance. There is separateness. Everything around you is this universal desire. Singular beings are the manifestation of it trying to find harmony. When it finishes, it will achieve absoluteness. My work is(hopefully) done. I'm welcome to criticism and want it directly, if you please. Olly, I've got your answer.
The Roy Game:
A Life Well Lived.
+Miles Away You made Roy go off the grid! Roy doesn't have a Social Security number!
I feel like life is the fucking roy game
I think Nietzsche would disagree. For him obstacles, which are often undesirable and unpleasant in the moment, are important and useful in the process of personal growth and positive evolution. If you are in that machine or addicted to that drug then you will encounter no obstacles and therefore never have opportunities for growth or evolution.
+Robert Wofford The resolution of frustration is as much a pleasure as getting high. The problem here is that in a closed-circuit utopia where you're always "high," can you then still adapt that as the new normal? If you can, then is there a way to increase the high to a cap where you never adapt, or will you always adapt? If you can reach a pleasure cycle where you never feel you come down from the high, you will never feel normal and therefore will never have to seek out a new high. If you adapt, however, the infinite stability of that kind of life might make the mind restless again, and then the Matrix happens. You try and find out why everything is so stable and then attribute a "bad" property to the purveyor of that stability so that the process of escaping it or defeating it becomes a new high.
conquering these obstacles is still desirable; it just competes with other desires. Humans have a greater ability to simultaneously hold different desires and to withhold gratification of some immediate pleasures for future ones
But what if the machine intentionally gave you just the right obstacles to make you happier in the long run compared to your real life?
man, i love nietzsche
LOL I’ve been an opiate IV user 6 years straight cause I’m into a more hedonistic lifestyle & I guarantee pretty much all addictions drugs or activities. Have many many obstacles.
The metaphor of the Machine doesn't do it for me, 'cause I don't think you can *make a decision* a about pleasure that lies in the *future* - you could call that 'desire', but I think most would agree that desire isn't a rational process -. All you can do about pleasure is *reflect/meditate* about events in the *past*.
So what I would say is: "put me in, let me *experience* the in-Machine-life and take me out. Then i'll be able to reflect about the life inside and outside the Machine and decide which one is best.
I can't know if I'd prefer to be a pig 'cause have never been a pig. I can't choose properly. Experience is the only valuable data one can get about pleasure.
I came here seeking confirmation to my bias.
Ie. I want a life of drinking beer and playing video games.
You'd be missing out on smoking hemp.
This is like the worst form of hedonism
You sound more like a nihilist
Saaaame buddy
Hey Abigail! I was thinking about humanism recently and decided to give it a search on youtube and this gem popped up. Thank you for your thoughtfulness in your explanations and responses and I'm happy to see where you are now vs where you were when you made this video. Thanks for being awesome and I look forward to seeing what new things are in store for you in the next 7 years!
I want to address the “problem” of whether we should want to be a pig.
If someone would prefer to be an unhappy human to a happy pig, they should have good reasons for expecting others to feel that way. I for one would rather be happy, and I don’t see what’s so bad about being a pig
I very much enjoy your videos Ollie. Asking myself a new questoon every week helps my own 'identity' become more clear and connected.
I wouldn’t have traded my harder life for a good one, and it is because the awareness that comes with experience is more valuable in and of itself than just pleasure. Pleasure in ignorance without responsibility is like being a pig.
My argument against hedonism is the following: imagine the activity you like doing the most. If you had the opportunity to ONLY do that one activity forever, would you? I wouldn’t, because I think a variety of experience is more valuable than optimizing pleasure.
I wanna be a cat...
I wanna be a stud lol
X2
meow...
Found this through it being embedded in a powerpoint by my teacher! I've been a fan of you for a bit, it was a fun little moment to see an old video of yours in school materials
My problem with Nozick's "Experience Machine" is that there are contradictory pleasures, both pleasures are equal but you can't experience them both.
For example:
To me it is pleasurable to "know the truth", but if the truth is "hard to digest" / unpleasurable (e.g. learning that one were wrong the whole time or that one''s life is meaningless) there is no right choice, whether the machine should or shouldn't let me know.
A way to get around this problem is to quantify pleasure very precisely and choose the "better one" or, if they are exactly equal, to "flip a coin".
Another question is how the machine achieves it's goal to cause the "maximal pleasure".
Biologically, pleasure is just the release of hormones like endorphin and the resulting stimulation. A machine which would put me on a constant overdose of endorphins would cause more pleasure than I could ever experience in any other way. This is just being 24/7 on drugs, which barely anyone, who didn't try it and got physically or psychically addicted, would want.
But if the machine would simulate the world (or universe) for one, which one desires the most, way more people would opt in.
So the question whether you would want to live in a, for you, perfect world or whether you would want to experience maximal pleasure are very different ones.
Stew Taylor
What about the rest of my comment? That's what actually was my main point.
Stew Taylor
But how am I supposed to decide whether I would like to live in such a machine or not, if I don't know anything about it? If it would simulate my perfect world, I would most certainly say yes. But if it would be an automated drug injector, I would say no.
And I'm certain that most people would agree with me on those two choices.
I'm not asking for technical details or criticising the practicality of the hypothetical machine; I just can't decide whether I would opt in or not, if I don't get any information.
the machine is supposed to simulate the life that you want. Even if it did use drugs to create those feelings of pleasure in your life from you doing things that you WANT, it wouldn't matter because it is still achieving the goal of simulating whatever world that you get pleasure from being in/experiencing. im explaining this using "preferential hedonism' as the defintion of pleasure.
so now the question is for you, do you care that it is an illusion?
philosophy works in not answering questions, but posing more questions to answer your questions. To get you to think about the answer for yourself. This is why I like philosophy. It trains the mind and feeds it to sustain itself free from the tendrils of oppression from forces of manipulation.
I think pleasure is what makes life good for everyone. In some way or another people all give up to it dont they? Even religious people have the fundamental idea that they can live lives without pleasure and do gods will because a infinite paradise of pleasure will await them. The fact that they give up current pleasures for future ones still seems like they are just living life for pleasure. In a way we all are hedonists and it is the nature of life we are picky about what type, in what way and when we will find it.
Good point. The religious fundamentalist is as much a hedonist as the guy who does cocaine with hookers every night. My opinion is that all humans are hedonist because everyone wants pleasantness. What type of pleasantness varies just as people like different flavors of ice cream. So the strict nun who lives an austere life of abstinence and feels good and holy about herself is seeking the pleasure and enjoyment of that holy feeling she gets. It makes her feel good. Thus, although she doesn't realize it, she is as much a hedonist as the guy with the hookers and coke. Everyone is seeking pleasantness and that makes us all hedonist, just in different ways.
Not really. I've been following Jesus for a while now and have truly come to light what it's all about. It's about changing how much you value selfish pleasure, and placing it in taking pleasure in things that are mutual or selfless. I've started to get to a point where I cannot take pleasure in any activity where I am not doing something for someone else. Nearly all of my pleasure is starting to be put into love. This has given me a completely new perspective on life and a profound care for others. Then you might say "how is it selfless if you take pleasure in helping others?". Well to get there you have to sacrifice all of your selfish pleasures(which are more than we think) and in it comes a suffering from their abstinence, and you blindly follow your selflessness regardless of the suffering it causes, and the prize is a freedom from the suffering for you no longer seek selfish things and thus there is no pleasure in them. Jesus didn't lie when he said that he was the truth and the life.
Not true. If you're a true believer, you don't do good things just to end up in paradise. That's fake, selfish and it doesn't work in the eyes of The Lord.
Instead you do things because you try to purify your soul. Not for the sake od the achievement or pleasure, but for the sake of the very belief that god intended so.
However, I'm not really that type of believer, I believe that If it's possible, god intended it, and I hate myself because I want to be "pure" but instead I'm cursed, nothing's ever enough for me and I only live for the moments of pleasure. xD
Yeah but that is the unfortunate implication of the heaven and hell system honestly, I mean you can purify your soul and do all that put at the same time still strive for the pleasure of heaven as a motivate for genuine faith. I'm an atheist so what the hell do I know just a thing to note you can have selfish and selfless intentions both at the same time and I don't see how that's any less valid.
I learnt about hedonism at the bathhouse. As happy as a bunch of pigs in mud. The caveat being, meaning must be expertly buried deep inside and not let out to play.
I heard something that sparked my interest in the subject so I looked it up and found this. Oh, it's Philosophy Tube. I like that channel. I click on it and wonder for a good few seconds who the fuck is on my screen.
hahahhahaha. I legitimately follow this channel for years, but when I look for older videos I always think, "Where is Abigail? who is this twink?"
I'm the person number 500 in liking this. What an honor
Matias Javier And I'm #1 in liking this comment!
Overall good vid. I like that you mentioned Epicurus' different kinds of pleasures (abiding-katastematic and dynamic-kinetic pleasures), which can lead people to planning their hedonic regimen, HOWEVER you didn't go into the divisions of desires into natural & necessary, nat but not necessary, and neither natural or necessary and therefore empty, and to be easily discarded. THIS IS THE TRUE KEY TO THE GOOD LIFE, it's not just understanding the end that nature has established for us according to the Epicurean Masters. A person can not carry out hedonic calculus properly and maximize the benefits and minimize the losses, without first doing the introspective work to discern these things.
I hope you delve deeper into these matters in a future video! Epicurus is SUPER important to understand the science of being happy, and his views have been vindicated by Dan Gilbert and other researchers in the science of happiness whose positive psychology theories are Epicurean by another name.
This is a great video to kickstart a discussion or a springboard for broader and deliberate brainstorming. I like the simplified way of presenting the topic. I think I had watched this twice already. Thanks again.
I know you danced a little dance when you composed that person/porcine pun, and I approve.
0:24 You mentioned that only pleasure and pain have value (in Hedonism).
You kinda skipped over the pain part and only talked about pleasures.
Could you explain the value of pain in Hedonism? Or point me in a direction
so I can read up on it. Love your videos! Thank you! :)
Thank you for posting. I enjoyed the video - it was clear and succinct. In response to your question: Buddhist philosophy describes life in 10 different states, from least desireable to most. Pleasure, or rapture is only number 6. Number 10 is Buddhahood, or enlightenment and is manifested through acts of compassion in number 9, the life state of the Boddhisatvva. The 13th century Japanese monk, Nichiren, taught that all people can manifest the life state of the Buddha instantly, by chanting Nam Myoho Renge Kyo.
I think that the only way that a person could reasonably object to living in the experience machine (because it is the only distinction) is because their life would not be 'real'. Anything they accomplish would not actually have been done. This forces me to conclude that people must value their accomplishment more than pleasure. There are many possible reasons for this, some more interesting than others, but I want to quickly outline two here:
1. The value of living a 'real' life stems from a person's desire to make a contribution, a mark, in the universe before they are gone. This could be motivated by a form of altruism - wanting to make a 'real' difference in people's lives - or by a need to do something to be remembered by, to be immortal in some way. In this case then the fear of death is a greater motivator than pleasure, which makes sense, which is why I like this idea. There's an idea I like even more though.
2. It's undeniable that people take pleasure in their creations.There are many reasons why someone may create something, but in almost all cases it is, mainly, because they enjoy it. This in mind, remember that the only difference between the experience machine and real life is that in the machine any accomplishments are not actually 'real'. One could only create things virtually. While in the machine one would forget that, but from an outside perspective one would not be able to truly take pleasure in their creations. This means that the pleasure of appreciating one's actions or creations must be a more desirable pleasure than any experience.
In this case the experience machine is not an case against hedonism, but in fact possibly an argument for Mill's Utilitarianism. Obviously Mill's idea about experts deciding what pleasure is higher is faulty, perhaps we all have individual subjective criteria.
These were just some ideas that I had. Thoughts? Criticisms?
Also, how many objects are there please? I'm pretty confident there can't be more than seven :P.
Imagine a man said man has two personalities they each control the body for 12 hours a day they are now split into two has the number of people increased or decreased lets say it increased now there are two people spawned from one mind now imagine a man dreaming of himself and another the first scenario has 1 brain of set processing power able to generate 2 people of equal intelligence who have 2 separate methods of thinking what if there is no difference between the two except for duration and layer of reality now imagine a dream that lasts for a lifetime and is self consistent with set rules that don't change or contradict with people who are not you who are sentient and see you as not them what i just described is a world a reality if you were smart enough you could make a world as real as ours. the reality machine could make a world as real as ours now i ask you what's the difference between plugging in and teleporting. (This is assuming that the machine has enough processing power)
How many objects are there. Pleasure is a thing we desire. I would like to see where an argument about addiction fits into this discussion and how altruism works. It seems like we can rule out altruism that is simply gratifying. But in the case of addiction one may seek to eliminate the addictive behavior for the sake of an other. The addiction islikely to be more desirable than the gratification from ending the addiction. I feel the situation is iffy.
The definition of what pleasure entails is paramount. We have the two categories of physical and mental pleasure/pain. The actual meaning reference of what a pleasure is needs expansion. Is it just an emotion, a physical feeling? Is victory over difficulties, the expression of courage, accomplish, relational love for instance a pleasure?
Those sort of feelings are concomitant with something to achieve, overcome, endure and win out. THUS pleasure as only positive, or pain equating the negative is a false dichotomy.
The MEANING of pain and/or pleasure is contextual. Humans often choose painful difficult things to confront. Why? Because of their greater perceived meaning within a wider context.
I prefer a wider existential contextual pursuit of the "good". Who defines this for an individual?
The introduction of moral choices associated with hedonism is a whole other field of sources of ethical meanings. Thank you for vid.
A reason for the experience machine to not give a person the give a person the good life is that failure can make success more satisfying. No one wants to fail to do something. But successfully doing something you failed at in the past feels amazing. The experience machine could not give a person that feeling because it needs failure or not being able to get a desire to happen.
I’d rather be a contented slug, about to be crushed under foot, than to be an immortal deity, should it be a miserable one. Ultimately, happiness is all that matters.
It appears that the video on suicide is gone; I didn't know it existed until the end of THIS video, and I've been watching all of the videos on this channel in chronological order.
Yeah, I hadn't realized he had done a suicide video this far back, but I would assume he probably took the earlier one off after doing the 2018 one on suicide and mental health since that one is just... there really isn't any need for an earlier one after that one
I think you're right on the money when you stated that despite you've written papers defending preference hedonism, you're waiting for a proper argument to come along and change your mind.
I propose that one may take into account the perspective from Epicurus and go with the idea that there are kinetic and katastematic pleasures. However, the fulfillment of the katastematic ones, leaves one with the possibility (less distractions) to pursue the opportunity for development, the chance to be better, to evolve, to transcend one's previous limitations and become a higher version of oneself.
I believe that is in itself the reason for our existence here on earth: to evolve. That evolution doesn't come without overcoming challenges, but overcoming those releases a feeling that goes beyond pleasure. If I'm not mistaken Tesla called that feeling "higher than love".
That's why even if you're proven wrong, you'll be happier for that had you expand your mind, your perspective and ultimately yourself.
The regular, mundane, pleasures are all well and fine and should be experienced. One should, however, indulge so much in them that they stop being an experience and become the objective.
I imagine that the skepticism of plugging in is the feeling of loss of your first life. I doubt anyone would object to a perfect pleasure life happening to them outside of a matrix. A natural version
In answer to the experience machine, I have actually longed for exactly such a thing before I knew it was a thought experiment...so...yeah.
There was that famous thought experiment by a psychologist I believe (I forgot the name) where he talks about living a life full of pleasure if it meant being ignorant towards certain things like for example, the fact that your best friend and your lover are having an affair. Most people would choose to know about something like that rather than to live in blissful ignorance of it, which means that most of us agree that there are more meaningful things in life than pleasure.
Or, as Kurt Cobain put it - "I miss the comfort in being sad".
"Any state that is desirable" can steer alarmingly close to "Brave New World" territory, though. Careful with that one. I tend more towards feeling that sadness is necessary to happiness, anger to love, all that balance stuff. I imagine you've seen "Inside Out"? That idea.
Thank you so much, good work. In my opinion, we made to/ live to fulfil our desires and pleasures, and feel joyful (in a moralistic way) . We just feel confuse about how to achieve that, because we have to experience it through the human body/condition, therefor increasing our level of awareness and consciousness is important, we have the capacity to learn from our mistakes and those of other's, everything has good/bad, nothing in life of one dimension. We always have choices no matter what, freedom is distinguish us from other beings. Thank you.
I quite agree that there are lower and higher pleasures in life. And higher pleasures, as I've found, always concern with spiritual. And for me, lower pleasures are going against higher pleasures, and that requires me to live a more intentional life
In my opinion, life inside the Experience Machine necessarily must be good for any individual. This is because 1. for hedonists, no matter how you define pleasure, we can simply replicate that experience in the machine and upgrade it indefinitely. For example, if you believe that overcoming obstacles and failures are fundamental components of true pleasure, then we can simply simulate a world which provides you with just the right obstacles to elicit that pleasure with more intensity. 2. for non-hedonists, the same argument can be made for any other experience in life which you define as "good".
I have to say something about benevolent despotism, though. People have desires, their agendas, if you will. If these are in conflict with equal power, with everyone thinking they're right, aren't they just getting nothing done? Also, if they do, that means they agree. That means they are of one mind about it. If they have different desires for doing so, this means the same thing. They're in conflict. If they are all of one mind and one desire(highly unlikely), they contribute their power to a whole to get something done. Now, if this happens, what is the difference between this and having a benevolent despot doing everything. I understand the risk of one person holding all control, but this is based on opinion(typically public, sometimes open or secret political) and security.
"if life's not beautiful without the pain, why I'd just rather never even see beauty again." Some hedonist food for thought...
I believe this is an answer to all comments here.
I like to think of our conscious experiences as a landscape that has peaks and pits. Some pits are deeper than others, and some peaks higher than others. The pits represent pain, or any experience that is deemed undesirable. The peaks represent pleasure or experiences that one finds desirable. There also are experiences that are neutral, I.e. neither bad nor good. They are similar to what we would consider a rock by the side of a road to experience if it were a conscious entity.
For me, the experience of happiness is represented by only one of the peaks. There are many other experiences that are different from happiness, such as thrill, sensual pleasure, the discomfort experienced when exercising and others, which also represent peaks.
I cannot make the claim that seeking sensual pleasure is objectively better than seeking happiness, nor can I assert otherwise. It's all a subjective preferance in the end. Each of us has freewill to choose his conscious experiences. Each of us is free to construct his hierarchical arrangement of valued experinces.
Philosophy Tube
It is a very tricky topic because it involves a slippery tautology.
First of all, I would like to say that my views, in terms of what pleasure is, are compatible with the ideas of Derek Parfit (I have not read any of his work, I just thought that what I got from your description of his ideas is very sensible, and I hold the same opinion, too).
Given that we are talking in a context were Parfit is right about what pleasure is, there is a problem with the very question this video is concerned with. Since the question is 'What do we need to live the ''good'' life?', we cannot have a spectrum of answers, among which, one is ''pleasure'', and that is because the word ''pleasure'' , by the definition we agreed on in this context, is predestined to stand as a synonym (or a description) of the many possible answers of this question and not as a possible answer itself. In this context, ''money'', ''love'', ''successful career'', and answers of this sort is what we are looking for. In other words, in a Parfit-dictated context, the question 'What do we need to live the ''good'' life?' is equal to the question 'What aspects of life fall under the definition of pleasure?', 'What is the extension of the definition of pleasure?'.
So, what follows from that is that we argue concerning what is to be taken as ''pleasure'' and what is not, which is entirely senseless, as moral judgements are not genuine propositions of logic, i.e. they're not to be examined as true or false. Two or more different opinions on this topic can coexist without contradicting each other, as consistency is to be looked for, not in a transpersonal, but in a personal scale.
Additionally, in this context, someone who argues that there is more in life than just pleasure only finds himself holding this opinion because he has misunderstood the language we have agreed to discuss with. He says ''pleasure'' and means the negative connotations you talk about in your video. He says ''something more'' and means ''something other than the negative connotations'', when, in fact, what he would then give you as a definition of his ''something more'' is automatically appropriated in Parfit's definition of pleasure ..as pleasure.
I would appreciate feedback because I am very interested in discussing the topic :)
I'd be interested in seeing the Fate episode.
I have a problem with katastematic hedonism. There is an idea in psychology that states humans need only three things to remain sane, these things are something to do, someone to love, and something to look forward to. The third of these can be equated more or less to hope. This idea would seem to say that humans need the hope of fulfilling an unsatisfied desire in order to remain sane.
I have i little experience with this. I have a pretty good life and at times I have been completely free of desire (or at least any desire i could come up with) and these have been some of the lowest points in my life. The complete lack of desire makes life seem as if it isn't worth living simply because there is no chance of it getting better.
So it is my personal belief that having everything actually brings pain rather than pleasure.
Here's a new topic idea that is on my mind. Is hedonism just new age spirituality for philosophers. Because those views do suggest that spiritual bypassing can be a threat to this world view.
I would prefer the experience machine. I wouldn't force anyone else to enter (or exit) the experience machine. I like Parfit's idea of preference hedonism.
+synchronium24 even if i would like the experience more i would be too unsure of the implications to go through with it.
+synchronium24 My ideal preference is the experience without the memory wipe and with the clear and easy ability to exit the machine, but of course I imagine that's most people. Choosing between chaos and stability is like choosing between breathing air or drinking water.
Ragnar Earthwarden
"My ideal preference is the experience without the memory wipe and with the clear and easy ability to exit the machine"
Agreed.
+Ragnar Earthwarden Well fucking said.
I know this is a million years old (4), but there is another look at the trapped in the same pleasurable day. For me, knowing more/having more experience is pleasurable. So reliving the same day stops the # of total days of experience, where as not reliving the day provides more observed/remembered time. So, an infinite life of daily mind wipes *is* less pleasurable than living one day more.
What makes a human life go well? This is very objective. A life going well is something that is decided upon by ones mind. Nothing is naturally good and bad, (this is hard to argue for) but through sensory input and comparisons people naturally judge things either good or bad. Taking into consideration that the one true thing humans have control over, is their outlook on life and personal emotions, one could argue that the good life is completely dependent on ones ability to control his or her emotions. To gain control over ones emotions, they must learn that being in an unpleasant state of mine, often leads to some of the best experiences one can have. Like wise, the individuals that know how to control impulses often times lives a more productive meaningful life. Most individuals would agree that having a head-ache is not a desirable state of mine, but their body is telling them that something is wrong, so how could this head-ache be bad?
Pleasure is not what makes life good. Achievement is. Or in philosophical terms *Arete*
However, pleasure *may* be a consequence of achieving arete.
says who
@@julian.castro18 Says Aristotle.
@@Hooga89 I dont like that guy
What achievements? Most people are just going to be 9 to 5 stiffs their entire life no matter how hard they strive towards a goal because its just how life goes sometimes. I have no problem with ideology of hedonism because at least it gives some people something close to what is a meaning in life even if it is momentary pleasure.
I didn’t think I was a hedonist. Turns out I am!
you should do the how many objects are there!
How did I miss this when it came out?
Damn you, RUclips feed!
I think that one of the things to take into account with regard to Hedonism is that empathy relies on it. It generally feels good to help other people (for example, hugs lead to a release of oxytocin, which feels good and leads to greater levels of trust).
+Philosophy Tube Thanks for the heads up on Evaluative Hedonism, that will be useful in the paper I'm writing.
this very much applies to you and your current iteration albeit
How about Roger's Crisp view on Hedonism? Where does that stand in your presentation of scholars of Hedonism? Thanks
Parfit's conception of preference satisfaction seems to assume a deep rationale for one's actions, if they aren't for pleasure. Where the hedonist can simply point to levels of pleasure actually obtained, the preference satisfier is at a loss as to what is actually being maximized, considering peoples preferences do change.
I agree with the benevolent despotism thing but believe it should be a temporary transitional period until a democratic republic can be formed. This is why I tend to be supportive of the Egyptian Military coup. They need an ounce of dictatorship to keep anti-democratic parties out of power until they can ensure a healthy democratic republic at the end of the transitional period. The middle east and North Korea both would require such a benevolent dictatorship as a transition into democratic republicanism.
After watching all the philosophy concepts and ideas of people from the past, i now realize that people tend to look for the meaning of life with different views. These great minds that searched for meaning of life points back to aristotle and earlier philosphers saying that there should be a higher knowledge that we cannot comprehend. Kind of like the 4th dimension. Therefore, to think about its meaning is to think of it outside of the human cognitive..
We should assume that people want their lives to be saved until they tell us otherwise
I am a hedonist officially, but with several deontological general rules because I think this actually leads to more sustainable pleasure in the long term, in real life (feeling like you have no autonomy causes lots of suffering, as anyone being forced to do anything will tell you). I think the good thing about humanity and society is that through intellectual rigor we enable situations through which we can have greater pleasure and reduce how often we encounter suffering. So intellectual rigor is an investment of suffering and/or lack of happiness (at least through the opportunity cost of foregoing an activity of pure bliss) that can and often does result in lack of suffering at a later time.
Domesticated pigs only live in the bliss that they do because we apply significant skill and labor to ensure their comfort. Without the toil that comes with that there would be no pigs in pens. And there would be no royalty without such toil as well, some of whom are arguably the human equivalent of pampered pets. So living like royalty would be okay if there were a class of laborers (genetically engineered and/or mechanical) that are incapable of suffering as a result of laboring for others. Otherwise the suffering of the wider population would outweigh the bliss of those they toil for, which would be bad, hedonistically, for the society at large.
Excellent! Really thought provoking, which these days is rare, thank you!
Now for dear Parfit. First of all, the distinction between pleasures only are the difference between higher necessities. You need to eat. Also, ice cream is pleasing to you. The fact that something you have to do is pleasurable is a psychological win-win. On the other hand, your connection to your favorite song helps you, but is not as important as the ice cream, at least inherently. They both help you, however, but one is more seriously needed. Intrinsically, they both are wanted, but your mind, your reasoning abilities, tell your desires that(only one thing is processed at a time) you should eat. Although, if someone tells you that eating is not important and you believe them, this overturns your reasoning abilities' conclusion. However, you still need to eat. This person tells you that music is now important. You now sublimate your desires through this guy. Your reasoning abilities inform you that he is to be trusted, as he now take the on-pedestal position of food. You now listen to the song. This is going back to pragmatic truth.
I'm all for more metaphysics. I just began studying for university entrance exams, and metaphysics is a core part of the textbook :) ...Although, so is philosophy of religion.
gebedijahh Philosophy of Religion is my JAM. I love it. I try to keep it mainly off the channel though, just because lots of it is already out on RUclips and it tends to get a bit contentious.
Philosophy Tube Yeah, there sure is no short supply of it here, however the quality of it is another matter in itself. The article on the exam material is a quick sight into the problem of evil, and mostly focuses on the dichotomy that the Theodicy seemingly poses. I would like to see a more of a humanistic viewpoint on religion, something like Alain de Botton does, but supported by more rigid arguments, and less poetic presentation (as entertaining as it is).
Would the metaphysics video perhaps be about the 'Problem of the many' by Peter Unger?
The ONLY reason why I would be hesitant to go into the pleasure matrix is that I do not wish to cause those who would miss me the pain of losing me. If everyone I loved was willing to come with me (i.e entering the machine doesn’t cause any pain to OTHERS) then sign me up right this second!
I'm crossed between hedonism and nihilism... In morality, I'm a moral nihilist... I don't see pleasure as the "highest good" as Google mentions in its definition of "hedonism". I do see it as the "proper aim of the human life" though just out of logic. The alternatives to pleasure is non-pleasure or perhaps simply being content and so pleasure just seems like the most optimal choice if viewed in a game theory sort of payoff matrix... So would that mean that pleasure has intrinsic value? I'm pretty sure that when I'm dead it really won't matter so either way when I'm dead I'd be a nihilist, but as I am not dead would I be a hedonist? Pleasure won't have any intrinsic value to me when I'm not around to experience it...
I couldn't discuss hedonism and morals without mentioning that Ayn Rand based her philosophy on hedonism. I became convinced of this from John Galt's epic speech, where he insists that morals are for the sake of achieving happiness and any other goal of morals is a form of death. This always makes me wonder how much of our economic system was created by people who follow her philosophy. This is probably more of a concern in the U.S. than elsewhere.
Satisfaction guaranteed also works
I literally just did a project on Bentham, Carlyle and Mills.
It was liberalism, but still - quite fun to see their differences. :)
I think that the ultimate good is achievement, and sometimes pleasure is the goal you want to achieve. This is different from achievement granting pleasure because achievibg a set goal may not at all be pleasurable in the end (vengeance) though perhaps the idea that it is pleasurable can be encouraging
I enjoy the idea of deist evaluative hedonism, because if one argues from a creationist's rulebook, religion has no real place for asceticism, and self-repressive behavior is the hallmark of many religions. There's an old prayer from the early Christian church in Turkey that I particularly like, called the "Heretic's Prayer" - which probably says something about the state of my soul, honestly XD - that was involved in an old story:
In one of the early monasteries, a young upstart monk gave a sermon from the point of view of God, the initial statement of which (and more probably, its theology) got him excommunicated, "for the purposed of this sermon, I am God" not flying particularly well with the Church fathers. In the sermon, he said something that caused the Abbot to storm out in a rage, and it was as follows... "All pleasures are My sacred rituals, with the proviso that they harm none, not yourself and not another." In this, of course, one can see traces of thought involved in the region's devotion to Astarte-Isis, something that later was greatly influential in Wiccan theology, with which the Christian churches are additionally still highly uncomfortable.
That said, I think the thought is highly.... revelatory. (bwahahaha). First off, the statement is a religious release of its constituents into a world of experiences; the idea of a Creator God informing you to avoid the creation is like a painter handing out blindfolds at the entrance to the art gallery. Herein is the idea that - if you, per se, love oranges - the moment of heightened experience in which you crack the peel, rough beneath your fingers, releasing that first puff of vapor; the first bite in which there is that explosion of liquid flavor; that moment of savoring the experience where you understand why, in some poetic sense, it is a fruit that's called a color... these all would be akin to an act of prayer, a moment of communion with whatever being or force instigated that experience, like sharing a moment with a painter from whom you are separated by centuries and kilometers. This is similar to the Buddhist idea of tathata, or, moments of "such-ness." Sufi mysticism has the interesting way of pursuing this state through whirling in circles like a child, the proverbial "whirling dervish" (though that has the other meditative goal of creating an inebriated state that removes one's faculties and replaces it with a larger impression of the movement of the galaxy, purportedly).
The other item of interest in this statement, or prayer, is its caveat; namely, "with the proviso that they harm none, not yourself and not another." Perhaps one could call this conditional hedonism, a hedonism that pursues pleasure and/or joy while possessing rules or principles designed with the intent of minimizing the pain or sorrow caused by this pursuit as it affects yourself and others. Initially, the prayer sounds like a free-for-all of "earthly delights," but it's really not; it forces one to reflect on one's pleasures, and the assessment of whom they affect and how; an awareness of consequence, and a willingness to control the consequence through control of the experience. Perhaps in the paranoid, this could indeed result inadvertently in some manner of asceticism, if only out of the fear of affecting the world negatively (I believe this is the motivation and result of some versions of Jainism). I personally think that this is missing the exit and driving onward, still looking for some destination of equilibrium, but again, that's simply my opinion.
Anyway, interesting thoughts.
Great content
Also, clap on the back for Mill. Ask an expert is the passive way to gain knowledge, sound familiar? The experts decide on the basis of pragmatic truth. This is what will serve the individual best. If I'm dying of diphtheria, and I ask an expert to pick between medicine and an apple for me, which do you think he'll say? There';s nothing else entering the picture of value,as you say, as pragmatic truth is a survival method for the self, which powers desire, differentiation between pleasure and pain. Checkmate.
With Nozick's explanation you brought up the Matrix, but I'd like to point out the film Vanilla Sky as well. It brings up the exact same issue.
I've nothing else to say, except that I also think preference Hedonism is the way to go, and that I'd like the 'number of objects' subject for the next video.
Thanks for yet another great video!
lol why is philosophy so complex. I can handle a complex calculus question/ mathematics, but this went over my head. I am trying to learn more about philosophy in a business context. Any book recommendations for a beginner, please?
Is pleasure what makes life good? What is good? Pleasure can only make life "good" if that is what good allows. (That makes sense right?) So are we trying to find the definition of good? But if pleasure makes something good that means pleasure is not good. For example, the definition of good cannot be feeling pleasure. this makes sense right? If we are trying to find the definition of good ignore the definition of good is pleasure part. So i guess my main question is, Are we trying to find the definition of good?
The simple answer to both thought experiments as they were put is that as a collectivist hedonist I would choose to remain in my current position in order to greater contribute to other people's pleasure. Now if the question is whether everybody should plug into the machine, I would say yes. As for everybody turning into pigs, I guess the total amount of pleasure in the world would increase with the transformation but I do think that humanity has the capacity to someday surpass that level. Therefore, not transforming is a valid long-term collectivist hedonist option.
For me, the key is not knowing that I made the decision to enter the experience machine. It could be an individual defect or a broader human function, but I think I would feel guilty to myself for taking "the easy way". I'd feel like my limitless pleasure was undeserved because I had not achieved it myself.
I would like to see both of the video ideas you mentioned. I can't really pick which one sounds more interesting to me.
Great Video, keep doing what you are doing! Subscribed!
Love the work you're doing ! Keep it up , wish this were around when I was a freshmen in college .
+Michael Trudell (-MikeT) Thanks!
Olly, on answering on the comments of this video, many times you occur on saying "you can program anything on the experience machine and it erases the memory of you making the decision of entering in it". But that may not really be the point, right? The question "would you plug yourself on the machine?" refers to a hypothetical future, not a hypothetical past. When confronted with the decision of plugging yourself on the machine, you choose to do it (or not) independent of the fact that you will forget about it. The morality behind the decision of, for example, leaving your loved ones is confronted before going inside. Whatever takes effect after that is not part of the question.
And that reasoning may shed a light on the argument of hedonism. The decision of hedonistic living can be put in perspective, not only the effect of the decision. Also, this shaves off a little bit of the idea of the "pureness" of pleasure and pain, as they would have to combine in complex ways to form moral and ethical values.
Such a good video! Gutted I only just saw this when I sat my Utilitarianism exam earlier on today haha
I assume those who would not want life in the pleasure machine would deny it because they want a life based in truth, but the desire for truth can just be classified as a hedonistic preference, which removes the challenge to hedonism.
Have you seen Gravity Falls? they sortof adress the pleasure machine thing really well (in the weirdmagedon episodes ).
Rick and Morty somewhat brings up the subject in the m night shamaliens episode with Jerry being the happiest he's ever been in his life in a simulation...
I think it's pretty cool that these ideas are making their way into popular media.
Where's your pfp from I recognize it but forgot where
The problem with the machine scenario is that there's a difference when someone knows the current pleasure is real, versus knowing the machine pleasure will be fake but feel real. Of course a ton of people would choose the lesser real pleasure over the greater fake pleasure, because it makes them feel better to know they have the real pleasure over the fake pleasure, thereby making them feel better for making the right choice. The decision is still entirely short term pleasure based, it's just not as inherently objective and logical as 4:35 makes it out to be
Okay, hedonism.What if the difference between pleasure and real happiness is knowledge? That is to say, you ultimately want satisfaction of your desires. You have the tools of your mind to experience and manage this. When your mind is fully satisfied, all levels of "good" are satisfied. Suppose there were beings "above" us, beings of which minds were larger and required higher satisfaction, seeing our intellectual pursuits as we see the pig. One only cares about one's own desires, essentially. When these are fulfilled, one experiences the said katastematic pleasure, which is your own mind serving its ultimate purpose, a universal desire. When one experiences this pleasure, it can be attributed to such practices of intellectualism and meditation, things apart from desire that uses desire to achieve itself. I'd like any errors in this argument to be illuminated, so throw it all at me!
Also, I think fate would be interesting, and we can relax our minds and recharge our brainpower for the next intellectual challenge.
I want to give a quick Feedback.
The background music is reaaaally annoying and takes a lot of the pleasure from the video; yes, the video is pleasurable for me as any other audiovisual production; maybe be more thoughtful on the levels that you are mixing the transition sounds as they are pretty darn loud. The music you probably got from a common royalty-free website as I've heard it countless times so it also makes me pay more attention to the music than to the video itself.
I think hedonism's got it, and I also think it's the motivator for meaning. If you are willing to indulge in the pleasures of the body, then you can indulge in the pleasures of the good feelings of helping others, of giving yourself to a cause, and these longer, "larger" projects tend to yield more pleasure over time. A different sort of pleasure, but more overall. A life lived with a sense of purpose or meaning would probably net you the most pleasure coins. Don't search for meaning and ethical living in spite of hedonism, do it because of the hedonic payoff!
Watched this one video and subscribed. Great page
The idea of preference Hedonism is very appealing in terms of explaining situations such as watching a sad or scary film which is pleasurable to one person but isn't for another.
From this, it seems that this theory is dependent on the psychology of an individual. What a person percieves to be good or not if from their own thinking and judgement. If we accept this then surely the 'good' life of a person is only good because it's their prefernces that make it good. For example, if you take a life a con artist who prefers to cheat and steal because of the pleasure it brings, which is good to the con artist, however is this a 'good' life that would appeal to all?
I guess what I am trying to ask is a 'good life' necessary full of pleasure? I think this is where the idea of smut and excess comes to it, that pleasures comes over and above principles, yes it is pleasurable to have more money but would it be 'good' to gain this through cheating others in the example of the con artist.
Not that I agree with this entirely, but it was my initial thought in terms of a preference pleasure-seeking 'good life'.
The con artist's life would be good *for them*, but it doesn't have to be the case that everybody would choose it. And it would be prudentially, though not necessarily morally, valuable.
If pleasure was "getting to the state of mind you want" keeping in mind the state of mind depends on your material state as well as your history.
The are we not redefining good but not giving us any insight into goodness?
Pleasure is good the same way that table is good, if I change the meaning of the word table enough!