116 replies to this topic

[NapisaurusRex]

Who lives longer? The man who takes heroin for two years and dies, or a man who lives on roast beef, water and potatoes 'till 95?" - Huxley

Depends on how old the addict was when he started.

[8143FF763271]

Survival. Survival>pleasure.

The only reason we survive is because of pleasure. Pleasure, as a matter of fact, precedes survival. We don't not eat and say "oh lord I'm going to die of malnutrition." We get hungry and eat in order to end something that feels bad. It's only until recently that everyone has adopted the absurd notion that everyone has a "drive" to survive. Not really. We have a drive towards pleasure. Pleasure just happens to be naturally suited towards survival. If survival was the ultimate end, we wouldn't eat fatty foods or smoke cigarettes. Alas, we pursue pleasure even when it stands in opposition to survival. Yet we don't pursue survival when it stands in opposition to pleasure.

Edited by kami12, 19 August 2012 - 05:18 PM.

[Sweeney]

Because people have different notions of pleasure. Some may not eat meat because they'd get more pleasure by having a long life while I'd personally settle for a death at 70 if it meant a lifetime of eating meat. Also, no one takes hell seriously. It's apparent by the fact that a few years in jail has been a more effective deterrent for crime than an eternity in hell has ever been.

Who lives longer? The man who takes heroin for two years and dies, or a man who lives on roast beef, water and potatoes 'till 95?" - Huxley

Wait, so there are people who value short term pleasure over long term consequences?
Which is it, boy? You're contradicting yourself.

Yet we don't pursue survival when it stands in opposition to pleasure.

We don't? You mean people live on dialysis for years for fun? People suffer chemotherapy for giggles?
Stranded travellers in remote locations eat their dead friends because they're super-duper tasty?

[NapisaurusRex]

The only reason we survive is because of pleasure. Pleasure, as a matter of fact, precedes survival. We don't not eat and say "oh lord I'm going to die of malnutrition." We get hungry and eat in order to end something that feels bad. It's only until recently that everyone has adopted the absurd notion that everyone has a "drive" to survive. Not really. We have a drive towards pleasure. Pleasure just happens to be naturally suited towards survival. If survival was the ultimate end, we wouldn't eat fatty foods or smoke cigarettes. Alas, we pursue pleasure even when it stands in opposition to survival. Yet we don't pursue survival when it stands in opposition to pleasure.

...I'm pretty sure if we didn't pursue survival when it stands in opposition to pleasure, the human race wouldn't have lasted this long. There'd be a whole lot more skeletons laying on top of each other in intimate positions and a whole lot more wild animals.

[8143FF763271]

Wait, so there are people who value short term pleasure over long term consequences?
Which is it, boy? You're contradicting yourself.

Of course there are. That's why I said that some might in my hypothermia comment. Go back. You can check.


I know, I know, I know. I'm amazingly meticulous and was 10 steps ahead of this discussion.

[Sweeney]

Of course there are. That's why I said that some might in my hypothermia comment. Go back. You can check.

So you admit that people defy simplicity, not everyone acts by the same motivation, and that I was right?
Super.

[HappyAccident]

He won't relent, Sweeney. Don't waste your time on him.

Edited by HappyAccident, 19 August 2012 - 05:23 PM.

[8143FF763271]

...I'm pretty sure if we didn't pursue survival when it stands in opposition to pleasure, the human race wouldn't have lasted this long. There'd be a whole lot more skeletons laying on top of each other in intimate positions and a whole lot more wild animals.

Not really. Have you ever heard a kid doing something yelling out "I MUST SURVIVE!!! RAWR I NEED TO SURVIVE I NEED TO REMAIN ALIVE IM EATING CUZ I WANNA LIVE". No, he eats because shit tastes good or because he's hungry. Humans don't have a will to survival, that's nonsense. Humans have a pleasure principle. This pleasure principle has been naturally selected so that we exert pleasure from things that aid our survival (like eating).

Every invention man makes is created in order to serve his pursuit of pleasure. We make shit for a reason, it makes life more comfortable for us. We only pursue life in so far as life can bring us pleasure. If humans just put life over everything, there would be no suicides, bad eating habits, drugs, cigarettes, risky sex, etc.

So you admit that people defy simplicity, not everyone acts by the same motivation, and that I was right?
Super.

It's the same motivation. I noted it back then and I am noting it now.

Didn't I just say heroin overdoses do too? There are plenty of things that are pleasant which we avoid because they bring us even more undesirable/unpleasant outcomes, like death. People try to maximize pleasure along the continuum of their lives, not just what is happening now. That's why they look forward to retirement but not to hypothermia (albeit some might).

Just quoting myself so everyone sees how ideologically throughout I am. I preempted an argument.

[MEGAKICK]

Fixed.

Anyway, warmth is a basic requirement for humans, we cannot function naked out on a snowy day. So I don't exactly see what you're finding so humorous.

Guess you've never met a Canadian

[MysteryMunch]

You keep asking these questions that are entirely up to individual taste as if they have an objective answer.

Quite so. The "meaning of life" question is necessarily subjective, whatever your belief system. For example, I'm a Christian; and that has a lot to do with what I value when I make decisions about how I live. However, even if you have a belief like that--one that puts the entire universe in a greater perspective--you're still just shifting the question from "What's the meaning of life in this world?" to "What's the meaning of existence, period?" Let's say I die and I go to heaven--I can still ask, "What's the meaning of existence?" and it would be a valid question. And that would be the case no matter how many layers of existence I had to depend on.

So from that, I conclude that the meaning of your existence must necessarily be personal and subjective. We are bundles of information, given shape by the laws of the universe we live in, and complex enough to understand that we exist and that our actions change the future. The information you are made of has to have some sort of organization; otherwise you will be directionless. To find meaning, to decide what is important and what is intrinsically valuable for you, is something that cannot be done for you. You have to do it yourself.

Edited by MysteryMunch, 19 August 2012 - 05:38 PM.

[Sweeney]

It's the same motivation. I noted it back then and I am noting it now.

Immediate pleasure and deferred pleasure are both forms of pleasure, granted. But they are not the same, as is clearly denoted by their preceding adjectives.
I can provide definitions of those, if necessary.

You are introducing variation into your credo of uniformity. Not everyone is the same; you have admitted as much implicitly despite your explicit denials, and anyone with any capacity for reading comprehension can see it.

[NapisaurusRex]

Not really. Have you ever heard a kid doing something yelling out "I MUST SURVIVE!!! RAWR I NEED TO SURVIVE I NEED TO REMAIN ALIVE IM EATING CUZ I WANNA LIVE". No, he eats because shit tastes good or because he's hungry. Humans don't have a will to survival, that's nonsense. Humans have a pleasure principle. This pleasure principle has been naturally selected so that we exert pleasure from things that aid our survival (like eating).

If I had to take a wild stab, I would say the reason is because he's never been starving. Although, I would think the hunger squelching instinct would fall under survival. The type of food chosen to eat would be the pleasure, if they had the ability.

Every invention man makes is created in order to serve his pursuit of pleasure. We make shit for a reason, it makes life more comfortable for us.

Right, that's because everything we need for survival naturally occurs?

[Nymh]

Ok, on the eating note, why is it that people don't eat until they have engorged themselves and weigh 5000 pounds if our only motivation is pleasure? Sure, some people do this, but they are a very small percentage. Most of us are able to eat as much as we need to (perhaps a little more than necessary) and then stop, even though continuing to eat would continue to bring us pleasure.

Or, why is it that when I am super excited, nervous, scared, anxious etc, I will go days without eating or sleeping? Even though eating would bring me pleasure, and certainly sleeping would as well, I can't force myself to do these things. I am sure others are the same way. Why is that? Would I not still feel the desire to pursue this magical "pleasure" that is supposedly so important to me?

[8143FF763271]

Immediate pleasure and deferred pleasure are both forms of pleasure, granted. But they are not the same, as is clearly denoted by their preceding adjectives.
I can provide definitions of those, if necessary.

You are introducing variation into your credo of uniformity. Not everyone is the same; you have admitted as much implicitly despite your explicit denials, and anyone with any capacity for reading comprehension can see it.

Except I said people are motivated by pleasure, in whatever form it takes. I've never contradicted that point in anyway so you're not arguing against anything I've said. Like I said, go back a dozen comments ago and see that I said some might prefer hypothermia to warmth. They see more pleasure in hypothermia-induced euphoria than they see potential pleasure in the rest of their lives. I already made that point and preempted this argument before it happened.

I've never stated that humans exert pleasure from the same things. Some enjoy orange juice, others enjoy grape juice. You're putting words in my mouth in order to look as if you've refuted anything I've said... which is rather unfortunate because I thought someone like you would have a better tactic in argument.

Edited by kami12, 19 August 2012 - 05:35 PM.

[Sweeney]

Just quoting myself so everyone sees how ideologically throughout I am. I preempted an argument.

No, you added a caveat in parentheses because you recognised a hole in your own reasoning, but were too intellectually lazy to reconsider your position.
It's essentially saying "everyone does this thing (but some don't)", which is a really, really impressive and complex ideological stance.
I'm sure everyone is impressed by the depth of thought displayed there.

[8143FF763271]

If I had to take a wild stab, I would say the reason is because he's never been starving. Although, I would think the hunger squelching instinct would fall under survival. The type of food chosen to eat would be the pleasure, if they had the ability.


Right, that's because everything we need for survival naturally occurs?

Again, you keep projecting what you learned in biology class to humans. Suppose that you are hungry. Do you know that means you're going to die? Are you preventing death by eating? Are you born with the knowledge that hunger will lead to malnutrition and death? No. You get hungry, it feels really bad, you look for food, you eat. You're answering to a pleasure principle, not a drive to survive. You want to get rid of an unpleasant feeling. This pleasure principle was naturally selected, sure. This pleasure principle was geared by nature so it would aid your survival, sure. But it is never present in you as a will to survival. It's not what it is. It's a will to pleasure. If it was a "will to survival" it would change in accordance to what best suits our health... but it doesn't. We got out of the caves a bazillion years ago and we still eat foods that will cause us a heart attack.

No, you added a caveat in parentheses because you recognised a hole in your own reasoning, but were too intellectually lazy to reconsider your position.
It's essentially saying "everyone does this thing (but some don't)", which is a really, really impressive and complex ideological stance.
I'm sure everyone is impressed by the depth of thought displayed there.

Not really. Like I said, I never, ever, ever have argued that all pleasure is short-term or anything of the sort. Please quote one example when I say that people only pursue short term pleasure (or any type of uniform pleasure) and I will quit this forum and never post again.

Edited by kami12, 19 August 2012 - 05:47 PM.

[Nymh]

I am not really impressed at all. The argument is too easy to make.

Why did she go to school even though it was really difficult and she incurred hundreds of thousands of dollars of debt that will take her decades to pay off? Because the thought of a degree pleased her.
Why did the person jump off a bridge to their death? Because they were pleased with the thought of their life ending.
Why did he kill his shipmate and eat him instead of waiting a couple more days for help? Because the idea of ... wait. There probably isn't much pleasure in that.

If you can turn everything someone says around to fit your argument simply by tacking on a "because it brings them pleasure" at the end, it doesn't really make for a particularly vivid discussion.

[Sweeney]

Except I said people are motivated by pleasure, in whatever form it takes. I've never contradicted that point in anyway so you're not arguing against anything I've said. Like I said, go back a dozen comments ago and see that I said some might prefer hypothermia to warmth. They see more pleasure in hypothermia-induced euphoria than they see potential pleasure in the rest of their lives. I already made that point and preempted this argument before it happened.

I've addressed this.

I've never stated that humans exert pleasure from the same things. Some enjoy orange juice, others enjoy grape juice. You're putting words in my mouth in order to look as if you've refuted anything I've said... which is rather unfortunate because I thought someone like you would have a better tactic in argument.

Nowhere have I said that you stated a homogeny in sources of pleasure.
It is clear, though, where you were forced to adapt your stance on the fly in order to compensate for a contradiction. At least have the courtesy to admit it.

[8143FF763271]

Ok, on the eating note, why is it that people don't eat until they have engorged themselves and weigh 5000 pounds if our only motivation is pleasure? Sure, some people do this, but they are a very small percentage. Most of us are able to eat as much as we need to (perhaps a little more than necessary) and then stop, even though continuing to eat would continue to bring us pleasure.

Or, why is it that when I am super excited, nervous, scared, anxious etc, I will go days without eating or sleeping? Even though eating would bring me pleasure, and certainly sleeping would as well, I can't force myself to do these things. I am sure others are the same way. Why is that? Would I not still feel the desire to pursue this magical "pleasure" that is supposedly so important to me?

Two answers: A) A feeling of fullness. Eating too much can eventually get unpleasant.
B) Trying to maximize pleasure in the long-term. You may want to pig yourself out, but you realize that this threatens your life (and potential pleasure) or will make you a fat ass (which feels bad for various reasons) so you opt not to do it. Why would you stop eating if it didn't make your life more pleasurable?

[8143FF763271]

I am not really impressed at all. The argument is too easy to make.

Why did she go to school even though it was really difficult and she incurred hundreds of thousands of dollars of debt that will take her decades to pay off? Because the thought of a degree pleased her.
Why did the person jump off a bridge to their death? Because they were pleased with the thought of their life ending.
Why did he kill his shipmate and eat him instead of waiting a couple more days for help? Because the idea of ... wait. There probably isn't much pleasure in that.

If you can turn everything someone says around to fit your argument simply by tacking on a "because it brings them pleasure" at the end, it doesn't really make for a particularly vivid discussion.

Well, that's the way shit is. What else do you suggest? That humans are following some divine purpose? I don't know why you people have such a hard time grasping that humans respond to a pleasure principle to do what they do. They do what feels good, avoid what feels bad. Simple.

I've addressed this.



Nowhere have I said that you stated a homogeny in sources of pleasure.
It is clear, though, where you were forced to adapt your stance on the fly in order to compensate for a contradiction. At least have the courtesy to admit it.

Again, there is no contradiction and I am waiting for you to quote one.

[Sweeney]

Again, there is no contradiction and I am waiting for you to quote one.

I can't, because your opening post was poorly phrased.

[8143FF763271]

I can't, because your opening post was poorly phrased.

[NapisaurusRex]

Again, you keep projecting what you learned in biology class to humans. Suppose that you are hungry. Do you know that means you're going to die? Are you preventing death by eating? Are you born with the knowledge that hunger will lead to malnutrition and death? No. You get hungry, it feels really bad, you look for food, you eat. You're answering to a pleasure principle, not a drive to survive. You want to get rid of an unpleasant feeling. This pleasure principle was naturally selected, sure. This pleasure principle was geared by nature so it would aid your survival, sure. But it is never present in you as a will to survival. It's not what it is. It's a will to pleasure. If it was a "will to survival" it would change in accordance to what best suits our health... but it doesn't. We got out of the caves a bazillion years ago and we still eat foods that will cause us a heart attack.

Anorexia?

[Sweeney]

Everything people do is in pursuit of pleasure, right?

[Nymh]

Well, that's the way shit is. What else do you suggest? That humans are following some divine purpose? I don't know why you people have such a hard time grasping that humans respond to a pleasure principle to do what they do. They do what feels good, avoid what feels bad. Simple.

This implies that all humans are inherently selfish by nature, and that every action of every human has pure self-motivation behind it.

What of action (or inaction) intended to avoid conflict, even when making that sacrifice means that the person is unhappy? Could you argue that it pleased them to avoid confrontation/trouble/pain even though the end result was not what they wanted?

On the same note, I am having a hard time believing that the avoidance of things is pleasure-inducing. Relieving, possibly, but not pleasing. I have a myriad of emotions, and being pleased is not my only positive one.

One more thing, why would people ever be sad if we did everything for pleasure? Wouldn't we just be like, "I could be sad, but instead I will be happy because that will be more pleasurable?"