@AHeroQuest Stoicism

Dionysus vs. Apollo

as for judging, yeah you can judge what will lead to pleasure and what will lead to pain. For example, if you make the decission to get a flu shot. Its some minor pain, maybe minor symptoms, it then depends on the likelyhood of otherwise getting the flu wether thats sensible. Lets just put numbers on it for simplicity. Getting the flue on average leads to 10 pain while the flu shot leads on average to 1 pain. In that case you should get the shot if there is a chance >10% of getting the flue

Except the philosophy doesnt tell you how

@Existence is identity i have no idea how feelings can be contradictory

It doesnt hold reason as a standard or tell you which is the good

i have no idea what you robjection is really

@Redneo Well it the context of long term pleasure me shooting some veins is quite a contradiction

I would think atleast

Lmao

feelings can hardly be contradictory

I just gave you an example lol

wait, how is it even possible to live life with only pleasure? or did I misread something?

yes it would be and as such NOT consistent with hedonism.

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/352148751118368779/522499201733754893/1544639388266.png

you should read about Apollonian and Dionysian philosophy

@Redneo Scroll up and reread

>netflix

@AHeroQuest maximisation of net-pleasure (pleasure minus pain. And yes, feeling like you have a purpose curing cancer or whatever IS pleasure)

😔

¶
This is the fallacy inherent in hedonism—in any variant of ethical hedonism, personal or social, individual or collective. “Happiness” can properly be the purpose of ethics, but not the standard. The task of ethics is to define man’s proper code of values and thus to give him the means of achieving happiness. To declare, as the ethical hedonists do, that “the proper value is whatever gives you pleasure” is to declare that “the proper value is whatever you happen to value”—which is an act of intellectual and philosophical abdication, an act which merely proclaims the futility of ethics and invites all men to play it deuces wild.

@Existence is identity abusing drugs like that is NOT hedonistic

No objectivity defined in this half baked philosophy

okay im getting the vibe that you want strict commandments?

It never tells man how to obtain, pursue, and keep his values

aaaand?

thats GOOD

thats why it work

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kxIcepJKUSU

We already went over this lmao

becouse if you dont pursue the kind of pleasure that you value, whats the point?

isn't it because every man values different things?

yeah

thats why hedonism makes sense

exactly hero

Oh okay lets define value and its moral code shall we

i allready said i dont like morals.

To challenge the basic premise of any discipline, one must begin at the beginning. In ethics, one must begin by asking: What are values? Why does man need them?

“Value” is that which one acts to gain and/or keep. The concept “value” is not a primary; it presupposes an answer to the question: of value to whom and for what? It presupposes an entity capable of acting to achieve a goal in the face of an alternative. Where no alternative exists, no goals and no values are possible.

. . . I'm not sure if I understand this. Are we basing hedonism on short-term pleasures or long-term?

To make this point fully clear, try to imagine an immortal, indestructible robot, an entity which moves and acts, but which cannot be affected by anything, which cannot be changed in any respect, which cannot be damaged, injured or destroyed. Such an entity would not be able to have any values; it would have nothing to gain or to lose; it could not regard anything as for or against it, as serving or threatening its welfare, as fulfilling or frustrating its interests. It could have no interests and no goals.

@AHeroQuest long term total