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

21–30 of 62 posts

Re: How to Think about Pleasure

#21

Post by prionassembly »

pontifier wrote: post #17

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 o…

It's not good manners to point out spelling mistakes, but it took me a while to go from "acetic" (vinegar-like?) to "ascetic".

Re: How to Think about Pleasure

#22

Post by jlengrand »

prionassembly wrote: post #21
pontifier wrote: post #17

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 o…

It's not good manners to point out spelling mistakes, but it took me a while to go from "acetic" (vinegar-like?) to "ascetic".

I kinda like the typo, it gives a very poetic / double meaning to the sentence :)

Re: How to Think about Pleasure

#23

Post by nsomaru »

Schopenhauer is instructive here. First he argues that suffering exceeds pleasure in the world:

Unless suffering is the direct and immediate object of life, our existence must entirely fail of its aim. It is absurd to look upon the enormous amount of pain that abounds everywhere in the world, and originates in needs and necessities inseparable from life itself, as serving no purpose at all and the result of mere chance. Each separate misfortune, as it comes, seems, no doubt, to be something exceptional; but misfortune in general is the rule.[0]

He defines pain as the 'positive' thing in our lives, pleasure being negatively marked by the absence of pain. He remarks that when we are of perfect bodily health, it is the stone in the shoe that makes its presence known, not the 1 000 000 other things that are going well. He goes on to say that if men didn't suffer ('turkeys fly around ready-roasted' -- paraphrase) they would kill themselves out of boredom.

I've found the "Penguin Great Ideas" translations of his work to be brilliant. It must be mentioned that his views on women are unfortunate, and some insight into why they are so warped might be gained by looking into his life.

[0] https://www.atlasofplaces.com/essays/on-the-sufferings-of-th...

edit: this aligns with the Vedantic definition of pleasure, as the cessation of mental agitation, where mental agitation is thought and its further expression as desire.

Re: How to Think about Pleasure

#24

Post by deepsun »

pontifier wrote: post #17

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 o…

The more interesting question is would you feel it if you didn't know any one who lived differently? Because I believe that comfort is very relative to others. If you don't know anyone living better -- you're happy.

Re: How to Think about Pleasure

#25

Post by rsj_hn »

deepsun wrote: post #24
pontifier wrote: post #17

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 o…

The more interesting question is would you feel it if you didn't know any one who lived differently? Because I believe that comfort is very relative to others. If you don't know anyone living better -- you're happy.

If you are as comfortable as your peers, then you are not at a disadvantage when competing for mates, and neither are your own offspring, so yeah, it's a big deal. We have evolved with the understanding that we need to compete with peers in order to be able to pass our genes on. We are not competing against trees or even our former selves, just against peers.

Re: How to Think about Pleasure

#26

Post by andelu »

nsomaru wrote: post #23

Schopenhauer is instructive here. First he argues that suffering exceeds pleasure in the world: Unless suffering is the direct and immediate object of life, our existence must entirely fail of its aim. It is absurd to look upon the enormous amount of pain that abounds everywhere in the world, and originates in needs and necessities inseparable from life itself, as serving no purpose at all and the result of mere chan…

I love this quote, but can someone explain to me what is meant with "Unless suffering is the direct and immediate object of life, our existence must entirely fail of its aim."?

Re: How to Think about Pleasure

#27

Post by taberiand »

wruza wrote: post #18

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?

Scanning through, they do cover the Epicureans and pleasure as an absence.

Re: How to Think about Pleasure

#28

Post by gwd »

andelu wrote: post #26
nsomaru wrote: post #23

Schopenhauer is instructive here. First he argues that suffering exceeds pleasure in the world: Unless suffering is the direct and immediate object of life, our existence must entirely fail of its aim. It is absurd to look upon the enormous amount of pain that abounds everywhere in the world, and originates in needs and necessities inseparable from life itself, as serving no purpose at all and the result of mere chan…

I love this quote, but can someone explain to me what is meant with "Unless suffering is the direct and immediate object of life, our existence must entirely fail of its aim."?

I would read that sentence as: "If the whole point of life is to experience suffering, and nothing further, then life has achieved its goal. If the point of life is anything else, however -- even 'experience suffering to achieve some higher purpose' -- then regardless of what the point is, life has completely failed."

Re: How to Think about Pleasure

#29

Post by BigBathtubLobby »

SilverRed wrote: post #14
skulk wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'm fairly positive he's using the term "utility" in a normative sense. Like Bentham's principle of utility, which aims to quantify pain and pleasure in order to better architect a "utilitarian" (obviously) function with which to steer law.

Re: How to Think about Pleasure

#30

Post by gwd »

SilverRed wrote: post #14
skulk wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

"Utility" in this sort of discussion is a philosophical jargon meant to encapsulate everything that might go into a rational creature's decision-making process. I.e., reason or experience may be able to tell you what actions will lead to what results, but you need something else: You need to know what results you actually want. So the goal of every rational being is to maximize its utility; and utilitarianism, a popular ethical system, defines morality as choices which maximize global utility. In economic jargon this would be "preferences"; in more everyday language it would probably best translate to "happiness".

So yes, in this sense, every hair color has a "utility", in the sense that it will make the person who has it (and the people around them) happy or unhappy to some extent. It doesn't matter why you prefer redheads to blondes -- whether it had some evolutionary advantage now or in the distant past or whether it's just a random chance; you prefer one more than the other, and so the one has a higher utility.

Post reply on HN