I am looking for a hedonistic debate

[MozartLink]

I never said this earlier and I have only presented myself in such a way that I was doing nothing more than posting information and such, but I am saying it here now which is that I am looking to have a debate with someone regarding my arguments which support hedonism (the idea that pleasure is the only true good thing in life). Now before you even think of coming up with any arguments refuting hedonism, I have already considered all possible refutations to hedonism others might come up with and I have refuted those refutations with arguments of my own. So it is important that you not only read all of my arguments, but also my refutations to the replies others have made to me since all of that is very likely to have already addressed and refuted your own personal arguments.

Therefore, I am going to present my arguments and the replies of others and my refutations to their replies. But it is on a separate forum since it is so long and I am instead just going to give you the link to that forum with all of the replies from others:

http://forums.studentdoctor.net/threads ... m.1128348/

If you lose interest in this debate, then you are free to opt out of this debate with me anytime. Just make sure that when you do so, that you do not disrespect me by mocking me or having scorn towards me because that would be not having full respect and full compassion towards me as a person.

I realize that my explanations supporting hedonism were very long. They are so long that people don't even bother with them. Therefore, here is a summary I have finally come up with that also explains some more things as well:

Many people say that even without our feelings of pleasure, that there is a form of joy, happiness, and pleasure we can have in our lives. But this is false. Different functions of our brains are completely different experiences. If we had no feelings of pleasure, then the function (experience) of all our thoughts would all just be the "thinking" experience. We cannot experience any form of pleasure or happiness from our thoughts and other things alone without our actual feelings of pleasure. To say that we can would be no different than saying that a blind or deaf person can experience sight or hearing from his/her thoughts alone without his/her actual sight or hearing.

We could very well personally define what pleasure is in our lives even without our actual feelings of pleasure. We could say that our thoughts and other things in our lives are pleasure just as we could say that our thoughts and other things in life are a form of hearing or sight without our actual hearing or sight. But that still doesn't change what our thoughts are. That still doesn't change the experience of our thoughts in that they are all the "thinking" experience of our brains and can't be the experience of sight, hearing, pleasure, smell, etc. Same thing if we personally defined our own happiness and joy in life without our feelings of pleasure. That personal defined happiness and joy is not going to change the "thinking" experience of our thoughts. This "thinking" experience cannot be any other experience as I've said before and it can't be any experience of pleasure, happiness, peace, or joy. As I said before, it is all nothing more than the experience of a thought of pleasure, joy, and happiness and not the actual experience of any pleasure, joy, and happiness without our actual feelings of those things. Even if we somehow could experience pleasure or suffering from our thoughts and everything else in life, then that could only be providing we have our feelings of pleasure and suffering to do so.
Our moral values and other profound personal meanings in life also can never change the experience of our thoughts without our feelings of pleasure. Pleasure, joy, happiness, misery, suffering are all scientific and can only be defined as the areas of the brain that experience actual feelings of those said things.

Now other things in life can very well have good or bad value. If you hurt someone or an innocent living creature, then that could very well be said to be something bad. If you help others and living creatures, then that could very well be said to be something good. However, there is another version of good and bad. This other version of good would be the version of good that comes from us being motivated, inspired, looking foward in life, having a sense of joy, etc (aka, having a sense of worth in life and life being worth living to you). This version of good is our own personal lives and this version of good can only come through having our feelings of pleasure. Without your feelings of pleasure, then you could still live for other good things in life anyway. But there would be no motivation, drive, inspiration, joy, pleasure, peace, or happiness. It would be nothing more than you just simply choosing your thoughts and actions and all that would be experienced here would be just thoughts and such. Therefore, that version of personal good in our lives I just mentioned would not exist without our feelings of pleasure, joy, motivation, etc. Same thing applies for bad in that, without our feelings of suffering, then our personal lives can never be bad. Without feelings of pleasure and suffering, then our lives would be neutral (neither good or bad).

Our own conscious is what defines our own personal lives since it is our conscious that makes us alive in the first place. Therefore, if we had no feelings of pleasure, then us living for other good things in life separate from our own conscious would not define our personal lives as anything good. In other words, we could live for other good people and bring them joy and pleasure. But that wouldn't make our own personal lives anything good without our own feelings of joy and pleasure. Therefore, the version of good and bad of our own personal lives can only be defined through our own feelings of pleasure and suffering. Just because we derive pleasure and suffering from witnessing others experiencing pleasure and suffering does not mean that we are experiencing their feelings of pleasure or suffering. We are only in our own minds and we can only experience our own feelings of pleasure and suffering. Therefore, this is the reason why only our own feelings of pleasure and suffering can define our own lives as good (pleasure) or bad (suffering) and nothing else.

One might ask me where is my scientific evidence supporting my claims here. The answer to that would be that this doesn't need any evidence. It is a basic scientific fact in of itself. To ask me for evidence of it would be no different than you asking me for evidence that our hearts pump to keep us alive. These are all things we already know. Just think for yourself here for once. How is it scientifically possible for a person with anhedonia (absence of pleasure) to somehow create new neurons and connections in such a way that his/her thoughts of pleasure become neurons and connections that experience pleasure and joy? This would be no different than me asking how is it scientifically possible for someone who is blind and deaf to create new neurons and connections in such a way that his/her thoughts of hearing and seeing actually become neurons and connections that allow him/her to see and hear.
Therefore, who the hell has ever taught you that we can have a form of pleasure, joy, and happiness in our lives without our feelings of pleasure? That an anhedonic person such as myself can have a form of pleasure in my life without my feelings of pleasure? These people who have taught you this are clearly speaking nonsense and are deluded.

Now I don't know of any evidence I can find (other than what I already stated which appears as an actual scientific fact in of itself). However, if, let's pretend, that you knew how the brain works and was some highly intelligent neurologist, then I think you could then conclude whether what I just said was a scientific fact or was nonsense. Therefore, do not ask me for evidence. Instead, go ask an intelligent scientist or neurologist and get their word.

But even if it were somehow proven to me that our personal lives can be good and that we can have a genuine form of pleasure and drive in our lives without our actual feelings of pleasure, my feelings of pleasure to me personally are what I need in my life and define my personal life as good and that does not make me selfish or a narcissist for having that value.

Here is another important point as well:

As for the idea of me solely living for others if I could never recover my pleasure, we all have personal good lives of our own we need to attend to and need to have. For example, I do things for my own self and my own life such as playing videogames which doesn't involve helping others. But the only thing that could make those sort of things I do for myself (my hobbies) anything good in my personal life is if I can derive feelings of pleasure from them. Therefore, it is like taking away all my personal hobbies and my own personal life and then telling me to just accept that, to just forget my personal life, and to instead just live for others and for other things instead. Therefore, do you not see why that would obviously make me psychotic? It would make any innocent and caring person psychotic. Feelings of pleasure are the only reward message to the brain and are the only things that tell us that our lives are good and worth living. Therefore, my feelings of pleasure are the only things that make my life and hobbies worth doing and pursuing. Don't believe me when I say that feelings of pleasure are the only "good" messages to the brain and are the only things that genuinely encourage us in life and encourage our survival? Then go ask an intelligent scientist or an evolutionary biologist. Sure, we could tell ourselves that our lives are good and worth living without our feelings of pleasure. But that is nothing more than just some thought. It is not that "good" message (feelings of pleasure). We could recognize certain situations as being good or bad and we could very well choose to help others and such without our feelings of pleasure. But the fact still remains that they are nothing more than just thoughts. They are not that "good" message as I said before. They are just simply thoughts of good and bad and not the actual messages of good and bad. The message of good obviously being feelings of pleasure while the message of bad obviously being feelings of suffering.

When we do something good or bad, then that gives us actual feelings of pleasure and suffering. Why is that? It's not just because they are just feelings that "just happen." They are messages to the brain that tell us that what we are doing is good or bad since that is how we evolved. Therefore, to not have any feelings of pleasure due to depression or anhedonia, then there is no message telling you that your life is good and worth living and you would only be fooling yourself by thinking that your life is good and worth living through your thoughts and such alone without your feelings of pleasure. Same thing applies for feelings of suffering in that you would not be having any message telling you that what you are doing in life is bad or that your life is bad.

There is a feeling version of good and bad and there is the thought version of good and bad. The thought version of good and bad without our feelings of pleasure and suffering are fake. They are not the true good and bad. Only our feelings of pleasure and suffering give us the good and bad message. Then there is empathy and compassion here as well. Those things also come in the form of feelings of pleasure or feelings of suffering. If you help someone out, then you feel good and that is a form of empathy and compassion. If you feel bad from hurting someone, then that is a form of empathy and compassion as well. Those feelings are what tell us what is good and bad in life. But without our feelings of pleasure or suffering, then there is nothing giving us the good or bad message. Therefore, you choosing to live for others anyway and to help them out in life despite your absence of pleasure wouldn't make your life anything good at all and wouldn't be any perceived good message at all. It would only be just a thought as I've said before. It's the thought of a good message towards others, but isn't the actual perceived good message.

[David Handeye]

What do you mean by "hedonism as true"?

[MozartLink]

What do you mean by "hedonism as true"?

That it can be scientifically proven as true. As of now, I might not of proven it as true (or I might actually have here and other people are just blinded by the seeming ridiculousness of my arguments and claims). But I am planning someday on having it tested and proven as either true or false through science. I wish to have my arguments tested and proven.

[MozartLink]

I realize that my explanations supporting hedonism were very long. They are so long that people don't even bother with them. Therefore, here is a summary I have finally come up with that also explains some more things as well:

Many people say that even without our feelings of pleasure, that there is a form of joy, happiness, and pleasure we can have in our lives. But this is false. Different functions of our brains are completely different experiences. If we had no feelings of pleasure, then the function (experience) of all our thoughts would all just be the "thinking" experience. We cannot experience any form of pleasure or happiness from our thoughts and other things alone without our actual feelings of pleasure. To say that we can would be no different than saying that a blind or deaf person can experience sight or hearing from his/her thoughts alone without his/her actual sight or hearing.

We could very well personally define what pleasure is in our lives even without our actual feelings of pleasure. We could say that our thoughts and other things in our lives are pleasure just as we could say that our thoughts and other things in life are a form of hearing or sight without our actual hearing or sight. But that still doesn't change what our thoughts are. That still doesn't change the experience of our thoughts in that they are all the "thinking" experience of our brains and can't be the experience of sight, hearing, pleasure, smell, etc. Same thing if we personally defined our own happiness and joy in life without our feelings of pleasure. That personal defined happiness and joy is not going to change the "thinking" experience of our thoughts. This "thinking" experience cannot be any other experience as I've said before and it can't be any experience of pleasure, happiness, peace, or joy. As I said before, it is all nothing more than the experience of a thought of pleasure, joy, and happiness and not the actual experience of any pleasure, joy, and happiness without our actual feelings of those things. Even if we somehow could experience pleasure or suffering from our thoughts and everything else in life, then that could only be providing we have our feelings of pleasure and suffering to do so.
Our moral values and other profound personal meanings in life also can never change the experience of our thoughts without our feelings of pleasure. Pleasure, joy, happiness, misery, suffering are all scientific and can only be defined as the areas of the brain that experience actual feelings of those said things.

Now other things in life can very well have good or bad value. If you hurt someone or an innocent living creature, then that could very well be said to be something bad. If you help others and living creatures, then that could very well be said to be something good. However, there is another version of good and bad. This other version of good would be the version of good that comes from us being motivated, inspired, looking foward in life, having a sense of joy, etc (aka, having a sense of worth in life and life being worth living to you). This version of good is our own personal lives and this version of good can only come through having our feelings of pleasure. Without your feelings of pleasure, then you could still live for other good things in life anyway. But there would be no motivation, drive, inspiration, joy, pleasure, peace, or happiness. It would be nothing more than you just simply choosing your thoughts and actions and all that would be experienced here would be just thoughts and such. Therefore, that version of personal good in our lives I just mentioned would not exist without our feelings of pleasure, joy, motivation, etc. Same thing applies for bad in that, without our feelings of suffering, then our personal lives can never be bad. Without feelings of pleasure and suffering, then our lives would be neutral (neither good or bad).

Our own conscious is what defines our own personal lives since it is our conscious that makes us alive in the first place. Therefore, if we had no feelings of pleasure, then us living for other good things in life separate from our own conscious would not define our personal lives as anything good. In other words, we could live for other good people and bring them joy and pleasure. But that wouldn't make our own personal lives anything good without our own feelings of joy and pleasure. Therefore, the version of good and bad of our own personal lives can only be defined through our own feelings of pleasure and suffering. Just because we derive pleasure and suffering from witnessing others experiencing pleasure and suffering does not mean that we are experiencing their feelings of pleasure or suffering. We are only in our own minds and we can only experience our own feelings of pleasure and suffering. Therefore, this is the reason why only our own feelings of pleasure and suffering can define our own lives as good (pleasure) or bad (suffering) and nothing else.

One might ask me where is my scientific evidence supporting my claims here. The answer to that would be that this doesn't need any evidence. It is a basic scientific fact in of itself. To ask me for evidence of it would be no different than you asking me for evidence that our hearts pump to keep us alive. These are all things we already know. Just think for yourself here for once. How is it scientifically possible for a person with anhedonia (absence of pleasure) to somehow create new neurons and connections in such a way that his/her thoughts of pleasure become neurons and connections that experience pleasure and joy? This would be no different than me asking how is it scientifically possible for someone who is blind and deaf to create new neurons and connections in such a way that his/her thoughts of hearing and seeing actually become neurons and connections that allow him/her to see and hear.
Therefore, who the hell has ever taught you that we can have a form of pleasure, joy, and happiness in our lives without our feelings of pleasure? That an anhedonic person such as myself can have a form of pleasure in my life without my feelings of pleasure? These people who have taught you this are clearly speaking nonsense and are deluded.

Now I don't know of any evidence I can find (other than what I already stated which appears as an actual scientific fact in of itself). However, if, let's pretend, that you knew how the brain works and was some highly intelligent neurologist, then I think you could then conclude whether what I just said was a scientific fact or was nonsense. Therefore, do not ask me for evidence. Instead, go ask an intelligent scientist or neurologist and get their word.

But even if it were somehow proven to me that our personal lives can be good and that we can have a genuine form of pleasure and drive in our lives without our actual feelings of pleasure, my feelings of pleasure to me personally are what I need in my life and define my personal life as good and that does not make me selfish or a narcissist for having that value.

[Arising_uk]

There is no hedonistic pleasure in debate.

[MozartLink]

Now I would like to add one more important thing here. As for the idea of me solely living for others if I could never recover my pleasure, we all have personal good lives of our own we need to attend to and need to have. For example, I do things for my own self and my own life such as playing videogames which doesn't involve helping others. But the only thing that could make those sort of things I do for myself (my hobbies) anything good in my personal life is if I can derive feelings of pleasure from them. Therefore, it is like taking away all my personal hobbies and my own personal life and then telling me to just accept that, to just forget my personal life, and to instead just live for others and for other things instead. Therefore, do you not see why that would obviously make me psychotic? It would make any innocent and caring person psychotic. Feelings of pleasure are the only reward message to the brain and are the only things that tell us that our lives are good and worth living. Therefore, my feelings of pleasure are the only things that make my life and hobbies worth doing and pursuing. Don't believe me when I say that feelings of pleasure are the only "good" messages to the brain and are the only things that genuinely encourage us in life and encourage our survival? Then go ask an intelligent scientist or an evolutionary biologist. Sure, we could tell ourselves that our lives are good and worth living without our feelings of pleasure. But that is nothing more than just some thought. It is not that "good" message (feelings of pleasure). We could recognize certain situations as being good or bad and we could very well choose to help others and such without our feelings of pleasure. But the fact still remains that they are nothing more than just thoughts. They are not that "good" message as I said before. They are just simply thoughts of good and bad and not the actual messages of good and bad. The message of good obviously being feelings of pleasure while the message of bad obviously being feelings of suffering.

When we do something good or bad, then that gives us actual feelings of pleasure and suffering. Why is that? It's not just because they are just feelings that "just happen." They are messages to the brain that tell us that what we are doing is good or bad since that is how we evolved. Therefore, to not have any feelings of pleasure due to depression or anhedonia, then there is no message telling you that your life is good and worth living and you would only be fooling yourself by thinking that your life is good and worth living through your thoughts and such alone without your feelings of pleasure. Same thing applies for feelings of suffering in that you would not be having any message telling you that what you are doing in life is bad or that your life is bad.

There is a feeling version of good and bad and there is the thought version of good and bad. The thought version of good and bad without our feelings of pleasure and suffering are fake. They are not the true good and bad. Only our feelings of pleasure and suffering give us the good and bad message. Then there is empathy and compassion here as well. Those things also come in the form of feelings of pleasure or feelings of suffering. If you help someone out, then you feel good and that is a form of empathy and compassion. If you feel bad from hurting someone, then that is a form of empathy and compassion as well. Those feelings are what tell us what is good and bad in life. But without our feelings of pleasure or suffering, then there is nothing giving us the good or bad message. Therefore, you choosing to live for others anyway and to help them out in life despite your absence of pleasure wouldn't make your life anything good at all and wouldn't be any perceived good message at all. It would only be just a thought as I've said before. It's the thought of a good message towards others, but isn't the actual perceived good message.

[Arising_uk]

Especially when it's a cut-paste one.

[Wyman]

When I have an idea or point of view, I find it illuminating to put the general idea out there and have a discussion with members of the forum, even if much of the discussion treads over old ground. If the discussion follows a natural, rational, progression, people often come up with wrinkles or go off on tangents that you never thought of. And repeating or re-traveling along your old paths of reasoning often either strengthens your position or causes you to question it - both can be illuminating. But putting it all out there at once and inviting a critique is probably not going to get the best results in this format - just my opinion.

[Lawrence Crocker]

Some distinctions and observations that have been made in discussions of hedonism:

Psychological hedonism: The only thing that is desired for itself is a pleasurable state of consciousness.

Egoistic psychological hedonism: The only thing that any individual A desires for itself is A’s pleasurable states of consciousness.

It has seemed to many psychologists, and non-specialist observers of the human condition, that psychological hedonism and especially egoistic psychological hedonism are empirically false.

There is sometimes a tendency to make egoistic psychological hedonism true by definition. “Pleasurable” is defined as “a state of consciousness that is desired for itself.” So if the psychologists tell us that there are some people who seek out pain and really do seem to try their best to make themselves miserable, the hedonist replies that pain and misery for those individuals must be pleasurable, otherwise they would not seek it out. So stated, psychological hedonism is irrefutable, and has every bit the scientific interest of “What is desired is what is desired.”

Normative hedonism: The only thing that is desirable for itself is a pleasurable state of consciousness. (The desirable is distinguished from the desired by some condition, e.g. “would be desired on appropriate reflection.”)

Discussion of normative hedonism soon gets us into questions of what it is we want a theory of value to do, which may, or may not, lead further to the question what morality is all about.

[Advocate]

If i put myself in mood mode so i can appreciate hedonism, my hedonic switch won't let me debate about it. So now what?