Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

How to Think about Pleasure

psyche.co

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 62 posts

Re: How to Think about Pleasure

#11

Post by allturtles »

danboarder wrote: post #5
XorNot wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This doesn't seem like much of a realization where you've concluded to just restate the usual batch of Christian puritan morals and sins about sex.

@XorNot I see it more from an economic perspective. Adam Smith in The Wealth of Nations popularized the idea of self-interest as being the "invisible hand" that motivates people in society to make economic (and other) decisions. I think self-interest is just another way to explain pleasure, or what pleases a person. Essentially these are all used interchangeably: Pleasure, Joy, Self-interest. I wouldn't simplify the…

Have you read Smith's Theory of Moral Sentiments? It applies the same kind of thinking found in Wealth of Nations (deriving systemic social principles from individual human motivations) to the moral sphere. He first introduced the phrase "invisible hand" in this, earlier book.

https://www.adamsmith.org/the-theory-of-moral-sentiments

Re: How to Think about Pleasure

#12

Post by dr_dshiv »

I've wondered whether there is a structural account of pleasure in the brain, in contrast and supplement to the "chemical squirt" hypothesis. Perhaps the alignment of brain rhythms could produce a kind of intrinsically pleasurable harmony, akin to music? The logic is that structural brain harmonies could support novel neural synchronies, which could in turn support Hebbian learning (cells that fire together wire together) and lead to pleasurable reinforcement (law of effect). In other words, perhaps the experience of functional neural growth and connection is itself pleasurable.

This would make me feel better about the pleasure of meaning. I'd really rather that it be intrinsically pleasurable, in contrast to what is known as "the hedonic gloss" — that anything can be made pleasurable with the addition of certain brain chemicals.

Re: How to Think about Pleasure

#13

Post by danboarder »

allturtles wrote: post #11
danboarder wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

@XorNot I see it more from an economic perspective. Adam Smith in The Wealth of Nations popularized the idea of self-interest as being the "invisible hand" that motivates people in society to make economic (and other) decisions. I think self-interest is just another way to explain pleasure, or what pleases a person. Essentially these are all used interchangeably: Pleasure, Joy, Self-interest. I wouldn't simplify the…

Have you read Smith's Theory of Moral Sentiments? It applies the same kind of thinking found in Wealth of Nations (deriving systemic social principles from individual human motivations) to the moral sphere. He first introduced the phrase "invisible hand" in this, earlier book. https://www.adamsmith.org/the-theory-of-moral-sentiments

Yes! Thank you for the reminder. Years ago I did read it in grad school studying economics, and this conversation has me looking for it, I plan to read it again. As a side note, I found the work of Joseph Schumpeter also incredibly insightful, he coined the term 'creative destruction'.

Re: How to Think about Pleasure

#14

Post by SilverRed »

skulk wrote: post #7
superkuh wrote: post #3

There's no need to lament that pleasure is some ill-defined or undefinable abstract anymore. Modern neuroscience has teased apart the concept of pleasure into wanting and liking. The implementations of those modes or modules of affect are pretty well conserved across mammals as are the physical expressions of that facet of pleasure when they are activated. Very specifically the liking is mediated by the shell of the…

Does modern neuroscience get us any closer to assigning utility to any given pleasure? That seems to be the focus of the article, not merely defining pleasure.

You can never just assume that a biological process actually has any utility. Some things have evolved to be just by random chance and also have no impact on your ability to survive. It would be like trying to find the utility to any given hair colour.

Re: How to Think about Pleasure

#15

Post by bartvk »

luaKmua wrote: post #10
danboarder wrote: post #2

I like to think of the pursuit of pleasure as having a critical time dimension for determining if that pleasure is 'bad' or 'good'. Think of this as short-term pleasure (bad or dishonerable) vs long-term pleasure (good or honorable). This is in contrast to the article which makes the good/bad distinction from a more Stoic perspective: "The pleasures of the mind are good; the pleasures of the body, not so much". And a…

FWIW, I get long-term satisfaction from playing a couple of video games that I've become deeply knowledgeable and skillful in. I have a community of friends in each and the process of improving and having a good match is the fun part, rather than the simple act of playing itself. Think of it like becoming really good at chess for the deep games.

I've picked up Fallout 4 again, and have managed to complete it at Survival difficulty, without dying once. I really enjoyed that new challenge.

Re: How to Think about Pleasure

#16

Post by watwut »

danboarder wrote: post #2

I like to think of the pursuit of pleasure as having a critical time dimension for determining if that pleasure is 'bad' or 'good'. Think of this as short-term pleasure (bad or dishonerable) vs long-term pleasure (good or honorable). This is in contrast to the article which makes the good/bad distinction from a more Stoic perspective: "The pleasures of the mind are good; the pleasures of the body, not so much". And a…

> "The pleasures of the mind are good; the pleasures of the body, not so much"

Applied to modern terms: twitter and gaming is good, dancing is not.

Re: How to Think about Pleasure

#17

Post by pontifier »

I've had a strange year in which I've been living a very acetic lifestyle... Basically camping while I struggle toward getting permits... Long story.

The lack of comfort became too much. I felt like the "pleasures of the body" were a secondary priority and I didn't want to spend the money. It just wasn't possible for me to go on like that though. I had to find an actual house to live in.

I feel like I lost the mind over matter game, and didn't live up to the ideal that I had about myself. On the other hand, it's very nice to be out of the wind and rain and heat and bugs, even if I don't feel I earned it yet.

Re: How to Think about Pleasure

#18

Post by wruza »

Weirdly hard to define, much less to feel OK about it, pleasure is a tricky creature. Can philosophy help us lighten up?

Maybe it’s just an absence of annoyances?

Asking me if I’m “Enjoying psyche?” with a popup literally after I scrolled past the article header wasn’t a pleasure. No, I haven’t had a chance yet. Who on earth approves this bs?

Re: How to Think about Pleasure

#19

Post by lukebuehler »

watwut wrote: post #16
danboarder wrote: post #2

I like to think of the pursuit of pleasure as having a critical time dimension for determining if that pleasure is 'bad' or 'good'. Think of this as short-term pleasure (bad or dishonerable) vs long-term pleasure (good or honorable). This is in contrast to the article which makes the good/bad distinction from a more Stoic perspective: "The pleasures of the mind are good; the pleasures of the body, not so much". And a…

> "The pleasures of the mind are good; the pleasures of the body, not so much" Applied to modern terms: twitter and gaming is good, dancing is not.

The classical definition of "pleasures of the body" is "sensible pleasures." That is, pleasures that require the involvement of the senses. So, by that definition, gaming and twitter would be bodily pleasures since you cannot have them unless you optically engage theses things.

Re: How to Think about Pleasure

#20

Post by vincentmarle »

danboarder wrote: post #2

I like to think of the pursuit of pleasure as having a critical time dimension for determining if that pleasure is 'bad' or 'good'. Think of this as short-term pleasure (bad or dishonerable) vs long-term pleasure (good or honorable). This is in contrast to the article which makes the good/bad distinction from a more Stoic perspective: "The pleasures of the mind are good; the pleasures of the body, not so much". And a…

> And as the article goes on to explain, this idea gained traction with Christians through the ideas of Kant and others, who thought the pursuit of pleasure in doing good was not noble in itself.

You need to go back a little more, Socrates and Aristotle (Nicomachean Ethics) were also concerned about the vices of pleasure.

Post reply on HN