[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature


View post   

File: 114 KB, 740x462, fatass.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12862856 No.12862856 [Reply] [Original]

Hedonism is the only philosophy that matters.

>> No.12862859

refined hedonism*

>> No.12862862

>>12862856
based

>> No.12862942
File: 39 KB, 374x347, image.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12862942

>>12862856
does utilitarianism imply hedonism? or does the utilitarian system distinguish between worthwhile gratification and degenerate lust?

>> No.12862946

>>12862942
utilitarianism IS hedonism

>> No.12862952

>>12862946
how does utilitarianism account for social constructivism. like if it became mainstream socially accepted that nuclear armageddon was pleasurable what would happen

>> No.12862959

>>12862952
you would die pleasurably in a nuclear armageddon then lol

>> No.12862960

>>12862942
Traditionally yes. Applicably, no.

>> No.12862981

>>12862959
So he mist humane thing to do is to create a bomb that would give every male a non-ceasing and intense prostate orgasm until they pass out and die. Same thing happens to women with their G-spots.

>> No.12862983

>>12862981
sounds hot as fuck

>> No.12862994

>>12862981
Cant think of a reason this is actually bad, except maybe blue balling some guy whos all out of loads

>> No.12863006

>>12862981
but that would mean asexuals are left out

>> No.12863012

If a dog can do it, its not philosophy.

>> No.12863013

>>12862942
read philebus

>> No.12863028

>>12863012
A dog if presented with infinte food would eat until its stomach exploded, a human would stop when they got uncomfortable to maximise their pleasure. That is the difference in thinking.<div class="like-perk-cnt">&#x1F36D;</div>

>> No.12863031

>>12862994
>>12863006
It's a bomb that cause intense physical pleasure that eventually kills you. No mental stimulation is involved.

>> No.12863041

>>12863028
There is no reason to actually believe this. Your claim sounds similar to a study where they did this with rats and cocaine, but, to be fair, if a bunch of giant men in white lab-coats locked me in a clear box, I'd probably just do blow till I died of thirst too.

>> No.12863058

>>12863041
Mosquitos do it as well, their hunger overrides their self preservation instinct

>> No.12863069

>>12862856
Hedonism as commonly understood/practised is crap, look at Epicureanism.

>> No.12863079

>>12862856
The problem with hedonism is it is artificial and hides your true self from even you. Any pleasure you get from women or eating food is socially constructed, a spartan lifestyle is much better for actually 'being' and enjoying life.... Heidegger

>> No.12863084

>>12863041
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/cows-heard-eat-death-feed-cereal-winter-energy-supplements-cattle-agriculture-rations-one-day-a7333201.html
animals aren't very bright

>> No.12863091

>>12862856
but satisfaction is destructive, anon. maybe in the afterlife there's no cost but there is here.

>> No.12863845

>>12863079
>Doing what a force within your own self tells you is hiding your true self
>but following an arbitrary esoteric lifestyle will reveal your inner self, despite being separated from it

Dabbling in decadence is insightful. It's a perspective on the world which you can examine and compare with other philosophies.

>> No.12863857

>>12863012
Why do you deny other earthly critters any philosophical aspirations?

>> No.12863867

tfw no qtpie pie

>> No.12863870

>>12862942
It depends on how you define what "good" is.

>> No.12863941

>>12862942
Utilitarianism falls into the hedonistic paradox.
You cant actively persue happiness. Happiness is something that comes from the things you achive so its more of a secondary affect rather than the primary goal.
The answer for your question to me seems very vague as everyone has a diferent idea of how it should be done. And trying to quantify happiness is also impossible since everyone has diferent bias and prespectives on how something would weight more.
Utilitarianism is still a spook since it still implies having restrict yourself for a higher cause and not let yourself persue your true objectives. The diferent prespectives of people would lead you to make things that would probably outweight you. Increasing the world happiness does not imply that you are happy and so they are not always at your self interest.

>> No.12864234

>>12863857
Because their mental faculties are strictly diadic: unmediated by symbols and belonging to the same realm as the cause and effect interactions of stones and apples.

>> No.12865176

>>12862942
Shut up nerd

>> No.12865441

>>12862856
Keep masturbating to anime figurines

>> No.12865447

>>12862942
>>12862946
no

>> No.12865460
File: 61 KB, 1228x1502, 12.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12865460

I will eat every single one of you.