Comments on: An Assay into Hedonism

By: Nick

Nick — Thu, 18 Oct 2007 16:10:00 +0000

But why does the will want anything? Why should a lil’ ol’ will want food, when it’s the stomach that’s hungry?

Also… if a man chooses buying a car over buying a house, does that mean, ipso facto, that the car will give him more pleasure than the house?

By: Philip Hilton

Philip Hilton — Thu, 18 Oct 2007 10:55:00 +0000

Nick --

The will chooses what it wants.
We call the things it wants pleasure.
Ergo, the will must choose pleasure.
Inferred: the will always chooses what gives the most pleasure.

And sure, it's determined by what things give our peculiar person pleasure. That, I would say, is what makes human behaviour meaningful. People can't randomly choose things that don't give them pleasure, so with a given person one can say, he will, or he won't do this.

John --

That's an interesting perspective on covenentalism. But the second moral code -- I don't think that would necessarily be putting God first, it could equally be people, or a person, or an angel, or quidquid persona.

By: John R. Ahern

John R. Ahern — Tue, 16 Oct 2007 21:40:00 +0000

Well, interesting post. I think I actually agree with you that the will chooses what shall produce the most pleasure. I think that actually applies to both moralities. I think Hedonism and movement towards desire is the basis in both moralities.

I guess its my Platonism coming on again, or call it my love of the Old Testament and Covenants: everything here on Earth are shadows or appetizers of the True Pleasure we receive in/from God. Putting the shadows and appetizers first is your first moral code; putting God first is the second. We're still after desire in the second, and from a Hebrew perspective, we are commanded to enjoy those shadows and appetizers resultant of our putting God first. (I think this is covenantalism in a nutshell.)

So, here's to eating, drinking, and being Merry.

By: Becca

Becca — Tue, 16 Oct 2007 13:20:00 +0000

I like how you’ve identified the different types of pleasure. It actually sounds a lot like Aristotle in his Ethics, if you haven’t read it already you definitely should. :-)
Anyway, Aristotle defines true happiness (the happiness that lasts) as “the activity of the soul in accordance with virtue.” In other words, living morally, with virtue, is what produces happiness. So Aristotle goes one step further in saying that by gratifying and pleasing others we in the end will be producing happiness for ourselves although our own happiness should not be our motive but is rather a byproduct.

By: Nick

Nick — Sat, 13 Oct 2007 21:32:00 +0000

You say that the will always chooses what will produce the most pleasure — is that a will at all? Doesn’t that imply determinism?

And… yeah, again, the idea of an alternate morality is interesting.

Good post.