_
The first hedonist among the PreSocratics was Democritus, and though we have only fragments from him left, several of these are explicitly hedonistic: ‘The best thing for a man,’ Democritus writes, ‘will be to live his life with as much joy as possible and as little grief,’ for ‘joy and sorrow are the distinguishing marks of things beneficial and harmful.’ Another fragment attributes to him that ‘what makes life really worthwhile is not one's possessions of any externals, but one’s state of mind’ and that only ‘fools live without enjoying life.
‘Psychological hedonism’ the view that all human behavior is motivated ultimately by desires to obtain pleasure or avoid pain (4) The great historical hedonists all appeared to subscribe to hedonism for more or less the same reason: that “from pleasure we begin every act of choice and avoidance” (Epicurus 1926).
The first hedonist whose arguments we know is Aristippus of Cyrene, and though all of Aristippus’ original writings have been lost, he is extensively quoted and discussed in Diogenes Laërtius’ Lives of Eminent Philosophers and Xenophon’s Memorabilia. (5)
The Cyrenaics were an ultra-hedonist Greek school of philosophy founded in the 4th century BC, supposedly by Aristippus of Cyrene, although many of the principles of the school are believed to have been formalized by his grandson of the same name, Aristippus the Younger. The school was so called after Cyrene, the birthplace of Aristippus. It was one of the earliest Socratic schools. The Cyrenaics taught that the only intrinsic good is pleasure, which meant not just the absence of pain, but positively enjoyable momentary sensations. Of these, physical ones are stronger than those of anticipation or memory. They did, however, recognize the value of social obligation, and that pleasure could be gained from altruism. Theodorus the Atheist was a latter exponent of hedonism who was a disciple of younger Aristippus, while becoming well known for expounding atheism. The school died out within a century, and was replaced by Epicureanism.
The Cyrenaics were known for their skeptical theory of knowledge. They reduced logic to a basic doctrine concerning the criterion of truth. They thought that we can know with certainty our immediate sense-experiences (for instance, that one is having a sweet sensation) but can know nothing about the nature of the objects that cause these sensations (for instance, that the honey is sweet).They also denied that we can have knowledge of what the experiences of other people are like. All knowledge is immediate sensation. These sensations are motions which are purely subjective, and are painful, indifferent or pleasant, according as they are violent, tranquil or gentle.[Further, they are entirely individual and can in no way be described as constituting absolute objective knowledge. Feeling, therefore, is the only possible criterion of knowledge and of conduct. Our ways of being affected are alone knowable. Thus the sole aim for everyone should be pleasure.
Cyrenaicism deduces a single, universal aim for all people which is pleasure. Furthermore, all feeling is momentary and homogeneous. It follows that past and future pleasure have no real existence for us, and that among present pleasures there is no distinction of kind.Socrates had spoken of the higher pleasures of the intellect; the Cyrenaics denied the validity of this distinction and said that bodily pleasures, being more simple and more intense, were preferable.Momentary pleasure, preferably of a physical kind, is the only good for humans. However some actions which give immediate pleasure can create more than their equivalent of pain. The wise person should be in control of pleasures rather than be enslaved to them, otherwise pain will result, and this requires judgement to evaluate the different pleasures of life. Regard should be paid to law and custom, because even though these things have no intrinsic value on their own, violating them will lead to unpleasant penalties being imposed by others. Likewise, friendship and justice are useful because of the pleasure they provide. Thus the Cyrenaics believed in the hedonistic value of social obligation and altruistic behaviour. (1)
The anecdotes which are told of Aristippus (there are many in Diogenes Laërtius) by no means give us the notion of a person who was the mere slave of his passions, but rather of one who took a pride in extracting enjoyment from all circumstances of every kind, and in controlling adversity and prosperity alike. They illustrate and confirm the two statements of Horace, that to observe the precepts of Aristippus is "to endeavour to adapt circumstances to myself, not myself to circumstances" and that, "every complexion of life, every station and circumstance sat gracefully upon him." Thus when reproached for his love of bodily indulgences, he answered, that "it is not abstinence from pleasures that is best, but mastery over them without ever being worsted" (2)
Philosophical, and especially popular, writing about happiness is full of ambiguity about what the term hedonism actually means. This ambiguity is perpetuated by conflicting descriptions in philosophical dictionaries and introductory textbooks. Simon Blackburn (2005, p. 161) and Gregory Pence (2005, p. 25) both severely limit hedonism by describing it as a specifically normative theory—which claims that pursuing our own pleasure should be the aim of all our actions—without mentioning any other types of hedonism. This normative account of hedonism is better known as Hedonistic Egoism and stands opposed to Hedonistic Utilitarianism (Moore 2011), which states that the morally good action is the one that is likely to maximise net pleasure for everyone (Brink 2006, p. 381).(3)
Epicurus (341-270 B.C.) revised this philosophy by placing a “qualitative” value to pleasure. Epicurus taught that pursuing pleasures of the mind, or intellect were of more value than pleasures of the body. He further emphasized that maximal long-term pleasure should be the goal of an individual as opposed to the momentary, short-lived pleasure. (6) *Note* To be of later focus on an elucidation on Epicureanism, _
Plato’s Ring of Gyges example, in The Republic (Plato 1974), can be read as a notable objection to Motivational Hedonism. Plato’s Socrates is discussing with Glaucon how men would react if they were to possess a ring that gave its wearer immense powers, including invisibility. Glaucon believes that a strong version of Motivational Egoism is true, but Socrates does not. Motivational Egoism is the theory that all the actions of each person are guided solely by the desire to improve one’s own life. Since Motivational Hedonism is a subtype of Motivational Egoism, it is also brought into doubt by successful objections to Motivational Egoism. Glaucon asserts that, emboldened with the power provided by the Ring of Gyges, everyone would succumb to the inherent and ubiquitous desire to pursue their own ends at the expense of others. Socrates disagrees, arguing that good people would be able to overcome this desire because of their strong love of justice, fostered through (moral) philosophising. (3)
When (or where) is Hedonism wrong?A popular counterexample is malicious pleasure (sadism/masochism). According to someone who knew him, serial killer and rapist Ted Bundy was “a sadistic sociopath who took pleasure from another human’s pain and the control he had over his victims, to the point of death, and even after” (Rule 2009: xiv). A hedonist can take “higher ground,” and agree that base and malicious pleasures have little, or even literally no value (4)
The anecdotes which are told of Aristippus (there are many in Diogenes Laërtius) by no means give us the notion of a person who was the mere slave of his passions, but rather of one who took a pride in extracting enjoyment from all circumstances of every kind, and in controlling adversity and prosperity alike. They illustrate and confirm the two statements of Horace, that to observe the precepts of Aristippus is "to endeavour to adapt circumstances to myself, not myself to circumstances" and that, "every complexion of life, every station and circumstance sat gracefully upon him." Thus when reproached for his love of bodily indulgences, he answered, that "it is not abstinence from pleasures that is best, but mastery over them without ever being worsted" (2)
Philosophical, and especially popular, writing about happiness is full of ambiguity about what the term hedonism actually means. This ambiguity is perpetuated by conflicting descriptions in philosophical dictionaries and introductory textbooks. Simon Blackburn (2005, p. 161) and Gregory Pence (2005, p. 25) both severely limit hedonism by describing it as a specifically normative theory—which claims that pursuing our own pleasure should be the aim of all our actions—without mentioning any other types of hedonism. This normative account of hedonism is better known as Hedonistic Egoism and stands opposed to Hedonistic Utilitarianism (Moore 2011), which states that the morally good action is the one that is likely to maximise net pleasure for everyone (Brink 2006, p. 381).(3)
Epicurus (341-270 B.C.) revised this philosophy by placing a “qualitative” value to pleasure. Epicurus taught that pursuing pleasures of the mind, or intellect were of more value than pleasures of the body. He further emphasized that maximal long-term pleasure should be the goal of an individual as opposed to the momentary, short-lived pleasure. (6) *Note* To be of later focus on an elucidation on Epicureanism, _
Plato’s Ring of Gyges example, in The Republic (Plato 1974), can be read as a notable objection to Motivational Hedonism. Plato’s Socrates is discussing with Glaucon how men would react if they were to possess a ring that gave its wearer immense powers, including invisibility. Glaucon believes that a strong version of Motivational Egoism is true, but Socrates does not. Motivational Egoism is the theory that all the actions of each person are guided solely by the desire to improve one’s own life. Since Motivational Hedonism is a subtype of Motivational Egoism, it is also brought into doubt by successful objections to Motivational Egoism. Glaucon asserts that, emboldened with the power provided by the Ring of Gyges, everyone would succumb to the inherent and ubiquitous desire to pursue their own ends at the expense of others. Socrates disagrees, arguing that good people would be able to overcome this desire because of their strong love of justice, fostered through (moral) philosophising. (3)
When (or where) is Hedonism wrong?A popular counterexample is malicious pleasure (sadism/masochism). According to someone who knew him, serial killer and rapist Ted Bundy was “a sadistic sociopath who took pleasure from another human’s pain and the control he had over his victims, to the point of death, and even after” (Rule 2009: xiv). A hedonist can take “higher ground,” and agree that base and malicious pleasures have little, or even literally no value (4)
Plato was of the same generation as Aristippus, and in several of his dialogues, he
discusses hedonism in detail. In the dialogue Protagoras, Socrates says the
following: "[Y]ou put the pleasures together and the pains together, both the
near and the remote, on the balance scale, and then say which of
the two is more. For if you weigh pleasant things against pleasant,
the greater and the more must always be taken; if painful things
against painful, the fewer and the smaller. And if you weigh
pleasant things against painful, and the painful is exceeded by the
pleasant—whether the near by the remote or the remote by the
near—you have to perform that action in which the pleasant
prevails; on the other hand, if the pleasant is exceeded by the
painful, you have to refrain from doing that."(5)
The more we understand pleasure and pain, the higher our moral understanding. Deduction or experience offers us the clearest ethical sense. For a list of pleasures and to read more on hedonism see here: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/hedonism/
References:
No comments:
Post a Comment