What is wrong with hedonism?

[jts]

Ayn Rand on hedonism.

http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/hedonism.html

I am profoundly opposed to the philosophy of hedonism. Hedonism is the doctrine which holds that the good is whatever gives you pleasure and, therefore, pleasure is the standard of morality. Objectivism holds that the good must be defined by a rational standard of value, that pleasure is not a first cause, but only a consequence, that only the pleasure which proceeds from a rational value judgment can be regarded as moral, that pleasure, as such, is not a guide to action nor a standard of morality. To say that pleasure should be the standard of morality simply means that whichever values you happen to have chosen, consciously or subconsciously, rationally or irrationally, are right and moral. This means that you are to be guided by chance feelings, emotions and whims, not by your mind. My philosophy is the opposite of hedonism. I hold that one cannot achieve happiness by random, arbitrary or subjective means. One can achieve happiness only on the basis of rational values. By rational values, I do not mean anything that a man may arbitrarily or blindly declare to be rational. It is the province of morality, of the science of ethics, to define for men what is a rational standard and what are the rational values to pursue.

I am not able to make any physical sense out of the above passage from Ayn Rand about hedonism. Examples might help. What is the difference between hedonism and Objectivism in real non-abstract terms such as food and sex and music?

There doesn't seem to be any clue about the difference between hedonism and Objectivism from Ayn Rand's life. Her food choices look to me like hedonism.

http://www.facetsofaynrand.com/book/chap7.html

What is wrong with rational hedonism? (By 'rational' I mean you consider the consequences.)

[Selene]

Now this should create an interesting thread...

[Dglgmut]

Was she just ignorant of the importance of diet? She didn't know cigarettes were bad, or didn't want to live in a world where they were.

[BaalChatzaf]

Hedonism gives me much pleasure.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Brant Gaede]

Instead of telling men what is rational to pursue try telling men to be rational and expect by so being x, y and z results or take issue(s) with those. There is no "science of ethics." Rand was all about top down with her at the top. I think this was necessary and appropriate, at least to some significant extent, in the 1950s and 60s--even the 70s--considering the over-whelming statist intelligensia of those times, but now it's obsolete. She was trapped in the government-state matrix and the implicit idea of making that better--someday--through education not political activism, but that didn't stop her from endorsing Nixon over McGovern (in spite of "It's Earlier Than You Think" [1964]) or blessing what became the future (today) economic international disaster primarily engineered by Keynesian-above-all a politician who didn't have to be tortured to take the job as head-of-the-Fed Greenspan. Of course, this turns Objectivism into mostly sand running through your fingers leaving one with a simplicity that would have deprived her of her occupation, for it is 95% a cultural artifact.

--Brant

[Brant Gaede]

The primary virtue of hedonism is having fun when young then repenting in old age by writing a great book you'll be admired for for millenia.

--Brant

[Selene]

The primary virtue of hedonism is having fun when young then repenting in old age by writing a great book you'll be admired for for millenia.

--Brant

Ah. the Augustine of Hippo route!

At age 17, through the generosity of fellow citizen Romanianus,^[19] Augustine went to Carthage to continue his education in rhetoric. Although raised as a Christian, Augustine left the church to follow the Manichaean religion, much to the despair of his mother, Monica.^[20] As a youth Augustine lived a hedonistic lifestyle for a time, associating with young men who boasted of their sexual exploits with women and urged the inexperienced boys, like Augustine, to seek out experiences or to make up stories about experiences in order to gain acceptance and avoid ridicule.^[21] It was during this period that he uttered his famous prayer, "Grant me chastity and continence, but not yet."^[22]

A...

[Peter]

In a roundabout way Rand’s answer below, also pertains to “hedonism.”

Q: What do you think of the libertarian movement?

AR: All kinds of people today call themselves “libertarians,” especially something calling itself the New Right, which consists of hippies who are anarchists instead of leftist collectivists; but anarchists are collectivists. Capitalism is the one system that requires absolute objective law, yet libertarians combine capitalism and anarchism. That’s worse than anything the New Left has proposed. It’s a mockery of philosophy and ideology. They sling slogans and try to ride on two bandwagons. They want to be hippies, but don’t want to preach collectivism because those jobs are already taken. But anarchism is a logical outgrowth of the anti-intellectual side of collectivism. I could deal with a Marxist with a greater chance of reaching some kind of understanding, and with much greater respect. Anarchists are the scum of the intellectual world of the Left, which has given them up. So the Right picks up another leftist discard. That’s the libertarian movement. [FHF 71]

end quote

In a similar fashion to Anarchism and Libertarianism, hedonism is anti-morality, anti-intellectual and anti-philosophical. So, just don’t smoke – anything.

Peter

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Immediate pleasure is a signal and an experience. It is too low-level within the context of the human brain to be a tool of meaning or cognition. It is either input to the higher part of the brain, or it is a temporary replacement for cognitive activity (like with an orgasm).

The best thing a hedonist can hope for at a fundamental level (in terms of how the brain works) is a life of happiness without meaning.

That might work for some, but not for me. I would get bored. I'm not trying to be snobbish with this comment. I'm being dispassionately literal.

Meaning engages my mind, regardless of whether I am happy or sad, or in pleasure or pain (if not too extreme). Happiness without meaning is good in small doses, but I have had longer bouts of this. Sooner or later (usually sooner), I started becoming anxious and squirmy and crazy to do something meaningful.

I won't even go into the horror of how drug addiction grows into something other than pleasure...

Michael

[jts]

Search restaurants and look at their menus. Something like 99% of all restaurants are about hedonism. (I'm not knocking hedonism.)

I know this about restaurants at least in Edmonton because a few months ago I tried to find a grocery delivery service. There were lots of restaurants that delivered but I looked thru their menus and not one had anything acceptable to me. I finally found SunTerra, which actually delivers real food and is not a restaurant.

All those who are opposed to hedonism, I will ask you a question.

Can you tell me with a straight face that you are not into hedonism?

If you answer that you are into hedonism, then it seems according to Objectivism, you are anti-morality, anti-intellectual and anti-philosophical. If you answer that you are not into hedonism, then I suspect that you are either a liar or an unusual person.

[anthony]

Search restaurants and look at their menus. Something like 99% of all restaurants are about hedonism. (I'm not knocking hedonism.)

I know this about restaurants at least in Edmonton because a few months ago I tried to find a grocery delivery service. There were lots of restaurants that delivered but I looked thru their menus and not one had anything acceptable to me. I finally found SunTerra, which actually delivers real food and is not a restaurant.

All those who are opposed to hedonism, I will ask you a question.

Can you tell me with a straight face that you are not into hedonism?

If you answer that you are into hedonism, then it seems according to Objectivism, you are anti-morality, anti-intellectual and anti-philosophical. If you answer that you are not into hedonism, then I suspect that you are either a liar or an unusual person.

jts, Read your excerpt from Rand once more. You apparently don't understand

the PHILOSOPHY of hedonism. The simple pleasures of living are not anywhere near the same ball-park as it, so I reject the premises of your question. Read MSK in his previous post too - this time 'with feeling.'

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Jerry,

Tony is right. I thought you were talking about hedonism as fundamental ethics.

I agree that restaurants lean more toward taste than nutrition, but that's not philosophical hedonism. That's marketing to a vulnerability.

Apropos, in your restaurant hunt, where are the naked people in orgies, the days-long meals, the delirium-inducing environments and elements, the people eating until they are stuffed and throwing up so they can eat some more? That's hedonism as was actually practiced in ancient times.

(btw - If you ever find a restaurant like that, please let me... er... aw hell... forget it... )

Some people have modernized this lifestyle, so you can find it if you look.

Michael

[jts]

I think maybe I'm starting to understand. Philosophical hedonism (hedonism not practised) is bad. Unphilosophical hedonism (hedonism practised) is good. Is that correct? ..... maybe I'm still confused.

Hedonism:

I like chocolate; therefore chocolate is good.

Objectivism:

Chocolate is good; therefore I like chocolate.

I assume (giving the benefit of the doubt) that all good Objectivists have a reason why chocolate or music or smoking or whatever else is good other than liking it, prior to liking it. I might be hard pressed to figure out what that reason might be in some cases.

But maybe that's just their philosophy. Maybe they don't actually do it. Maybe having a philosophy and doing it are 2 different things.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I think maybe I'm starting to understand. Philosophical hedonism (hedonism not practised) is bad. Unphilosophical hedonism (hedonism practised) is good. Is that correct? ..... maybe I'm still confused.

Jerry.

That's not correct, and yes, you are still confused.

George Smith, for instance, has practiced hedonism in the past with all due rigor. He can tell you a lot more about it than I can. He's even mentioned--here on OL--writing a book or something serious about it.

But you seem to be in a contrarian spirit and I don't have much time for mind games.

So carry on, if you care to do so. I doubt I will be discussing this further with you.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

Jerry, Michael is saying you are neither ignorant nor stupid.

--Brant

[jts]

Jerry, Michael is saying you are neither ignorant nor stupid.

--Brant

Most people in OL believe I am both ignorant and stupid. That's normal. Most people in probably every discussion group I was ever in believed I was both ignorant and stupid.

Anyway, I have 2 questions.

1. How is Ayn Rand's life style squared with being opposed to hedonism?

Hedonism:

I like smoking; therefore smoking is good.

I like chocolate; therefore chocolate is good.

I like Rachmaninoff therefore Rachmaninoff is good.

Objectivism:

Smoking is good; therefore I like smoking.

Chocolate is good; therefore I like chocolate.

Rachmaninoff is good; therefore I like Rachmaninoff.

Ayn Rand thought these things are good prior to liking them. True?

2. What is wrong with hedonism? (I don't understand Ayn Rand's explanation.)

I don't see what is wrong with rational hedonism, taking into consideration all the consequences to yourself and to others, short term and long term.

[Brant Gaede]

You are saying rational hedonism is good while Rand is saying that's a contradiction. Look at these concepts hierarchically. Rational is the proper use of one's mind respecting reality. That's basic. Hedonism, yes or no, would be a consequence of that rationality, or derivative. That's why "rational self-interest" is also a misnomer, even though I have often used it myself. In that case it's merely a redundancy. The contradiction becomes apparent when you examine what hedonism actually is--mindless pursuit of pleasure irrespective of the organism's actual needs as a rational being. A hedonist can easily violate human rights, though I suspect he'd find himself helmed in by his society's norms and that part of his rationality uncorrupted by this very bad idea. "Rational hedonism" means "rational" is lipstick and "hedonism" the pig.

--Brant

[anthony]

You are saying rational hedonism is good while Rand is saying that's a contradiction. Look at these concepts hierarchically. Rational is the proper use of one's mind respecting reality. That's basic. Hedonism, yes or no, would be a consequence of that rationality, or derivative. That's why "rational self-interest" is also a misnomer, even though I have often used it myself. In that case it's merely a redundancy. The contradiction becomes apparent when you examine what hedonism actually is--mindless pursuit of pleasure irrespective of the organism's actual needs as a rational being. A hedonist can easily violate human rights, though I suspect he'd find himself helmed in by his society's norms and that part of his rationality uncorrupted by this very bad idea. "Rational hedonism" means "rational" is lipstick and "hedonism" the pig.

--Brant

Good one: What was that about hedonism being the opposite of Objectivism, Rand wrote?

That makes for a useful start point. Think back to front. Objectivism counters subjectivism; and

everything in it assumes conceptualization. Hedonism stops at the sensory stage, essentially -

and by definition. Also, it is subjectivist - primacy of consciousness: "Whatever feels good, is

'the good' - by decree of my whim and fancy." It makes a mockery of rational selfishness.

Then a fair working definition of hedonism is - self-indulgent, sensory Subjectivsm, I'd guess.

From a failure to think hierarchically, you get the (skeptic's) conflation of principles and mere tastes.

Rachmaninoff, chocolates and so on, are values on different orders of magnitude, and levels, by miles.

Jerry's being disingenuous: not one of her personal preferences, and not every utterance or action by Rand was a principle of O'ism...

[Dglgmut]

Rand saw pleasure as a reward for accomplishment in accordance with one's values; not a criterion for selecting those values. She simplified this by naming life an end in itself, whereas all rational values must somehow be a means to this end (ultimate value). As Michael said, we can take pleasure without meaning, but it is an unsustainable course--only when pleasure is a reward for correct behavior can we truly enjoy it. Really it's all about consistency...

Personally, I do not accept life as an end in itself. Why? Pleasure is the only reason to love life, so already we are faced with a contradiction. Pleasure does not necessarily have to come at the cost of shortening one's life, but to be diligent and consistent in the selection of one's values--which not even Rand was--would likely lead to stress that would end up having the same effect.

"...to live and enjoy your life," whatever that means. Morality depends on a definition of happiness. "Live this way, and you will be happier than if you live any other way (whether you receive that happiness in this life or afterwards)." Rand's idea of happiness was "a state of non-contradictory joy", meaning pleasure without the fear of a future shortage of pleasure--which means an established sense of control over one's experience (reality).

Her ethics was not a method for achieving what she called happiness; not consistently, anyway. In AS she used a character's anecdote of a dying man to exemplify her version of morality. I can't find the quote, but I remember someone on a train told a story about a man clutching on to life even though he knew he was dying and in pain, and the listener thought "it was the most moral thing s/he had ever heard (something along those lines)." In that example life was more important than happiness, which contradicts again the moral reasons for sacrificing one's life... which would be to avoid the unhappiness of living without the person one died for (or philosophy in the case of Rand dying for Objectivism, as she said she was open to).

In any case, hedonism does not lead to happiness.

[jts]

You are saying rational hedonism is good while Rand is saying that's a contradiction. Look at these concepts hierarchically. Rational is the proper use of one's mind respecting reality. That's basic. Hedonism, yes or no, would be a consequence of that rationality, or derivative. That's why "rational self-interest" is also a misnomer, even though I have often used it myself. In that case it's merely a redundancy. The contradiction becomes apparent when you examine what hedonism actually is--mindless pursuit of pleasure irrespective of the organism's actual needs as a rational being. A hedonist can easily violate human rights, though I suspect he'd find himself helmed in by his society's norms and that part of his rationality uncorrupted by this very bad idea. "Rational hedonism" means "rational" is lipstick and "hedonism" the pig.

--Brant

Can you give examples of "mindless pursuit of pleasure irrespective of the organism's actual needs as a rational being"? I don't know what that means.

[Brant Gaede]

Drug addiction.

--Brant

[jts]

Drug addiction.

--Brant

Are you sure that's a good example of a mindless pursuit of pleasure? Is drug addiction about pleasure? It looks to me more like suffering. Maybe drug addiction is a -consequence- of a mindless pursuit of pleasure. Is addiction a pursuit? Or is it a condition?

Does nicotine addiction count as drug addiction? If so, then was Ayn Rand guilty of mindless pursuit of pleasure?

I can think of a whole bunch of examples of hedonism (I like it, therefore it is good) that probably most people do but probably no Objectivist would accept as hedonism. Listening to music can be hedonism (I like it; therefore it is good). I don't see what is wrong with hedonism applied to music.

[Dglgmut]

And that is probably why Rand did so much work defining rational art. If it inspires you to live and work to continue living, it's not hedonism but rather part of the semi-sustainable cycle.

[Brant Gaede]

I had hoped, Jerry, you'd know enough to figure it out. Of course there are addictions and there are addictions and of course I'm not talking about nicotine and such. I'm talking about grind yourself into the ground and destroy your life stuff with stuff you think is a pleasure to put into your body even though it may only be a relief.

--Brant

the joy of pulling teeth one at a time

[jts]

I had hoped, Jerry, you'd know enough to figure it out. Of course there are addictions and there are addictions and of course I'm not talking about nicotine and such. I'm talking about grind yourself into the ground and destroy your life stuff with stuff you think is a pleasure to put into your body even though it may only be a relief.

--Brant

the joy of pulling teeth one at a time

Short term pleasure (if it is pleasure), long term suffering. Is that hedonism? Or is that range of the moment hedonism? What's wrong with long term hedonism?

Hedonism: I like it; therefore it is good.

Objectivism: It is good; therefore I like it.

Take music for for example. What is wrong with I like this music; therefore it is good?

According to Ayn Rand, liking some work of music is not a valid reason why it is good. Why?