Talk:Paradox of hedonism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Philosophy Portal This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Philosophy, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Low	This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale.
Additional information: Related task forces (core areas): Ethics Logic

	This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
	This article has been selected for Version 0.7 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.
Additional information: B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale. Feel free to make short comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. ??? This article has not yet received an importance rating on the assessment scale. This article is included in the 2006 Wikipedia CD Selection, or is a candidate for inclusion in the next version. Please maintain high quality standards and, if possible, stick to GFDL-compatible images.

I don't see why the ethics category should not be used here. Am I correct in thinking that that's the topic of a minor edit war that's going on in this article? Michael Hardy 21:07, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[quote]Happiness is often naively equated with pleasure, though sometimes the identification of the two concepts has been argued as part of a greater philosophical position called [/quote] "naively" is a very biased wording. i changed it by removing naively and adding ", a very debatable concept" after "...with 'pleasure'"

I deleted the reference to Ambrose Bierce's story, "Haita the Shepherd". Unless someone is willing to say where in the story this occurrs and and why the story is an example of hedonism, it's not helpful. I think allusions to literature are a good idea, but only if developed. User:Brinticus

I don't think this is really a paradox. Imagine aiming an arrow at a target; you'll only hit the bull's eye if you aim above it.

And you are almost certainly an Atheist of the Dawkins ilk. How DARE anyone, theist or not, attack the bedrock of Atheism that is Hedonism.

Contents 1 Hedonistic criticism? 2 Strange Side Picture Explanation. 3 Possible Explanations section 4 Happiness/Pleasure

[edit] Hedonistic criticism?

hi everyone, ive found this criticism unclear, has anyone else? postponing pleasure does not seem to be related to the topic very tightly? Spencerk 04:50, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, my first reaction after reading that subsection with a REALLY long title was to come here and discuss it. Yes, I agree it's confusing.

Root⁴(one) 03:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I was actually thinking about deleting Hedonistic criticism to the Paradox of Hedonism just because it didn't seem to relate at all. That is, until I saw it under a new light, so edited it for better understanding (as I saw it) and added commentary. This section is actually about the refusal of so-called hedonist to understand or believe the actual paradox itself, which I think is related. I also added commentary. -- Side note, but it is interesting to note that while trying to add some source to my commentary (What I wrote has certainly been said before), I came upon Ecclesiastes. I don't think that the writer of this would agree 100% with my comments. But the Hebrew book has a lot to say about pleasure... even a little bit about a form of Nihilism, which I find rather amazing. In any case, I recommend it as an educational read.

Root⁴(one) 04:29, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Later. This one section still needs fixing. I'm still tempted to delete it, or modify it, or something... I mean, the section title itself is needlessly horrendous. And I'm certain a bit "original research", though I still believe ideas from it could benefit the article as a whole. I wish I could fix it rather than blather and complain at my vain attempts. Root⁴(one) 05:14, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Section renamed "Hedonistic Criticism" and re-edited. It's still probably "original research", but hey, whatever. If too many people complain and the section can't be amended to suffice we'll just delete. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Root4(one) (talk • contribs) 05:37, 10 April 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Strange Side Picture Explanation.

Can anybody explain the picture? Even most one panel cartoons have some sort of caption. Root⁴(one) 17:26, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Possible Explanations section

I think that Hobbes should be quoted here. Hobbes makes a strong argument that man is naturally greedy, and will always look for egotistical desire fulfillment if given the opportunity to. (Hobbes' Leviathan). Hobbes' man in the state of nature will not stop at anything to achieve this desire fulfillment, except if other desires are being restricted. Ask a man if he is happy (as Locke says, quoted above) and man stops being happy because he realizes that there is more out there to pursue. That is greed.Farazars 04:38, 10 April 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Farazars (talk • contribs) 04:36, 10 April 2007 (UTC).

I don't think anybody's going to keep you from quoting (or even paraphrasing) Hobbes. Given the current quality of the article, anything from a notable person or reliable source would probably help. Root⁴(one) 05:12, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Happiness/Pleasure

"Happiness is often wrongly equated with pleasure" This is vague and stupid. That which is pleasurable makes us happy. The use of "equate" is tedious; people do not analyze their feelings in this way, but because pleasure leads to happiness (however short-lived), it is hardly a guilty assumption. Indeed, it is a fair assumption. If we take "pleasure" and "happiness" as separate sensations or emotions (the distinction being that emotions are slightly more delayed reactions than sensations) then it is evident that both frequently occur together, either one after another or simultaneously. I would also contend that happiness is a form of pleasure, albeit (when an emotion) something which can endure over time without stimulating anything other than our emotional state. No, this isn't scientific- but it is more accurate than the quoted notion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.15.111.48 (talk) 23:25, 5 May 2007 (UTC).

Take the statement "Happiness is often wrongly equated with pleasure" for literal value. Now take your argument "happiness is a form of pleasure". Your argument itself implies that Happiness should not be equated with pleasure. Where's the contradiction? When something is a form of something else, then certainly there is no equivalence. I don't even agree with your definition, but I see nothing contrary.

A statement as to what "pleasure" and "happiness" means in this context may be in order. I did not write the section, so I can't say authoritatively what it is supposed to mean. To me, happiness is more of a state of mind, a kind of contentment. It certainly is an emotion, if not emotionally related. Pleasure is more sensual, whether it be related to tasting good food, laughing at a good joke, admiring a wonderful painting, having an awesome orgasm, feeling a friends hug, enjoying a hobby, whatever. It is more concrete in that things that are pleasurable invoke some specific pleasure sensing portion of our minds. I could even imagine that theoretically, we might even be able to measure "how much one is pleased" with the proper tools.

I suppose the usage of "equate" here really means, A: "I will be happy If and only if I seek that which is pleasurable", or possibly even only B: "if I seek that which is pleasurable, then I will be happy" But that's simply not the case. That which is pleasurable does not always make us happy. If any of us see and are focused on a "wrong" in the world, I dare say nothing pleasurable would make us happy until the "wrong" is fixed or removed from our immediate view (or perhaps a third way to make us happy for a particular instance of "wrong" would be to realize what what we thought was a "wrong" really wasn't wrong at all). But people DO often make the assumptions A or B, try the actions suggested, and then can't figure out why they aren't happy.

Honestly, I consider "Happiness is often wrongly equated with pleasure" to be the primary reason for this article's existence. Intuitionally, one might consider happiness and pleasure being equivalent, or that one leads (and only leads) to the other, but the fact is happiness is much more complicated an emotion than we tend to think. Root⁴(one) 04:29, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

BTW, I wanted to assert, even though I've replied in quantity on this talk page (and will probably continue to do so), I do not "OWN" this article. The rules of Wikipedia still apply. If you want to improve the article, go right ahead. I can't promise that I won't revert the edits of anybody (obviously), but I can try to be fair. Root⁴(one) 04:37, 7 May 2007 (UTC)