That didnt refute anything like I said hedonism fails to define many things

and it SHOULDNT define these things

thats an empirical question

the things you are looking for

What are values, how do they benefit me, how do I keep them, to what standard are they based, how do I know which ones are consistent?

im not sure values can be inconsistent. They are whatever you value. Perfctly consistent right there

the standart is net-pleasure

is there a happy medium between hedonism and stoicism?

@AHeroQuest is it even a contradiction?

Yeah have a little poison with that food

Sorry but thats a contradiction

you can be ascetic and a hedonist.

if you value a simple life, perfectly consistent with hedonism.

Except to what standard is something a value?

Btw guess what! Hedonism doesnt define this

there can never be a "standart" for a value

Thus leading to contradictions

Values are allways subjective. Theycant be anything but subjective

Lol

This is too good

thats what value literaly means

something that is valued by someone

It can be objective lol

Life as the standard

why should life be valuable?

As it is implied metaphysically

The purpose of a human is to sustain life

no. thats just the result of natural selection, thats not the purpose

and it most certainly isnt intrinsicly valuable

nothing can ever be

There is only one fundamental alternative in the universe: existence or non-existence—and it pertains to a single class of entities: to living organisms. The existence of inanimate matter is unconditional, the existence of life is not: it depends on a specific course of action. Matter is indestructible, it changes its forms, but it cannot cease to exist. It is only a living organism that faces a constant alternative: the issue of life or death. Life is a process of self-sustaining and self-generated action. If an organism fails in that action, it dies; its chemical elements remain, but its life goes out of existence. It is only the concept of “Life” that makes the concept of “Value” possible. It is only to a living entity that things can be good or evil.

¶
Only a living entity can have goals or can originate them. And it is only a living organism that has the capacity for self-generated, goal-directed action. On the physical level, the functions of all living organisms, from the simplest to the most complex—from the nutritive function in the single cell of an amoeba to the blood circulation in the body of a man—are actions generated by the organism itself and directed to a single goal: the maintenance of the organism’s life.

An organism’s life depends on two factors: the material or fuel which it needs from the outside, from its physical background, and the action of its own body, the action of using that fuel properly. What standard determines what is proper in this context? The standard is the organism’s life, or: that which is required for the organism’s survival.

well why should one value any of that?

You havent sold me on any value being objective.

Because its the bodies literal purpose to sustain itself

why should i value a purpose?

It is to be consistent with reality

As to not contradict

why can't there be a mixture of both? It seems disingenuous to claim we should live life for all of the pleasures but then claim we should go through hell without acknowledging how much it hurts. Having it set as either-or just sounds like a world not worth living in

Survival is not value, or teleology. It is simply natural selection, as Punks said.

i dont see any contradictions in hedonism BUT, why should i valueconsistency and noncontradiction?