Infinite Bliss

@Abolitionist,

Hedonism is not happiness but the opposite thereof.

I've only skimmed through a few links on the site, but someone should really check Mr. Pearce. He writes:
"Two hundred years ago, powerful synthetic pain-killers and surgical anesthetics were unknown. The notion that physical pain could be banished from most people's lives would have seemed absurd."

In 1803 morphine was discovered, a synthetic drug. Just one example. Also, even today, the notion that physical pain can be banished from most people's lives is still absurd. We have become remarkably adept at treating pain, but eliminating physical pain: not quite.

If you want to end suffering, end egocentrism. Science is not required for this task.

@Didymos Thomas,

Didymos Thomas wrote:

Hedonism is not happiness but the opposite thereof.

I've only skimmed through a few links on the site, but someone should really check Mr. Pearce. He writes:
"Two hundred years ago, powerful synthetic pain-killers and surgical anesthetics were unknown. The notion that physical pain could be banished from most people's lives would have seemed absurd."

In 1803 morphine was discovered, a synthetic drug. Just one example. Also, even today, the notion that physical pain can be banished from most people's lives is still absurd. We have become remarkably adept at treating pain, but eliminating physical pain: not quite.

If you want to end suffering, end egocentrism. Science is not required for this task.

You're right Morphine was discovered earlier but when was the general use of anesthetics first implemented in widespread medical practice? Or when was it's use accepted by the general public and medical profession in western countries?

True, we are still not very good at eliminating pain - or more accurately I should say : 'we still have a long road ahead'.

Just as we are not very good at eliminating suffering through any means including methods of ending 'egocentrism'.

I've personally put many Buddhist masters to the test, they all suffer just as you and I do. Lessening the aversive circuitry through sublimation is very limited in efficacy.

Try meditating through your next intensely aversive experience - if definately helps but definately does not eliminate suffering.

Hedonism means many things to different people. How would you define hedonism? Do you think that Abolitionism is the value of hedonism over happiness?

Abolitionism is a normative ethic meant to apply to public policy. It is a core ethical principle used to evaluate rationales used to create public policy. It's core principle is;

The use of suffering to;

1. eliminate involuntary suffering
2. maximize voluntary happiness
3. eliminate involuntary death

(through the protection of human rights)

@Abolitionist,

Sounds like Huxley's "Brave New World". Let's all pop our soma and experience the 'infinite bliss'!

One person's utopia is another's dystopia.

@Didymos Thomas,

Didymos Thomas wrote:

Hedonism is not happiness but the opposite thereof.

I believe there's a misconception at work here and would like to suggest an alternative.

I believe, DT, that within the context in which you're referring to the term is not so far off. But I'd like to point out how I believe this term - hedonism - has been bastardized and ought be set straight.[INDENT]The definition/context/meaning to which I believe they refer is the seeking of pleasure in all its forms - not just ones we consider 'slovenly'. The smile on the face of my son, the feel of a warm breeze on my face, the satisfaction of having helped my neighbor in with her groceries or having read a revealing post on the Forum; these are all pleasures that I seek. Should this all lead to the 'opposite of happiness'?
[/INDENT]We tend to take the tenor of a term and apply our own bias. Perhaps that's not what you've done, but I sense it a lot; and when I see summary condemnations such as your statement appears to be, I feel it important to point out what I see to be the correct (or at least what I see to be the 'more correct') intent of the concept.

Thanks

@Khethil,

I thought pleasure and happiness was is two different things..try smoking a ciggy its pleasure but not happiness..

@xris,

Abolitionist wrote:

You're right Morphine was discovered earlier but when was the general use of anesthetics first implemented in widespread medical practice? Or when was it's use accepted by the general public and medical profession in western countries?

The word anesthetics was coined in the 1840s, after the invention of morphine, but man has used anesthetics since the beginning of time. We just tend to find more potent anesthetics over time. Morphine was first put to widespread use with the invention of the hypodermic needle - which occurred around the same time the term anesthetics was coined.

Anesthesia is ages old. It's use precedes the western world.

Abolitionist wrote:

True, we are still not very good at eliminating pain - or more accurately I should say : 'we still have a long road ahead'.

Just as we are not very good at eliminating suffering through any means including methods of ending 'egocentrism'.

The two are not analogous: eliminating physical pain and eliminating psychological suffering are two entirely different enterprises, except in those cases where psychological trouble causes physical pain.

Abolitionist wrote:

I've personally put many Buddhist masters to the test, they all suffer just as you and I do. Lessening the aversive circuitry through sublimation is very limited in efficacy.

Of course they suffer as you and I do: we're all human.

Abolitionist wrote:

Try meditating through your next intensely aversive experience - if definately helps but definately does not eliminate suffering.

I'm not sure that's exactly how meditative practice works. You mention Buddhism; Buddhist teachers will be the first to tell you that eliminating suffering is no easy task.

Abolitionist wrote:

Hedonism means many things to different people. How would you define hedonism? Do you think that Abolitionism is the value of hedonism over happiness?

Hedonism does have many different manifestations, and so the term can mean anyone of them: I do not suppose that the word has one particular meaning. All hedonism takes happiness to be the fulfillment of some craving.

Khethil wrote:

I believe there's a misconception at work here and would like to suggest an alternative.

I believe, DT, that within the context in which you're referring to the term is not so far off. But I'd like to point out how I believe this term - hedonism - has been bastardized and ought be set straight.[INDENT]The definition/context/meaning to which I believe they refer is the seeking of pleasure in all its forms - not just ones we consider 'slovenly'. The smile on the face of my son, the feel of a warm breeze on my face, the satisfaction of having helped my neighbor in with her groceries or having read a revealing post on the Forum; these are all pleasures that I seek. Should this all lead to the 'opposite of happiness'?
[/INDENT]We tend to take the tenor of a term and apply our own bias. Perhaps that's not what you've done, but I sense it a lot; and when I see summary condemnations such as your statement appears to be, I feel it important to point out what I see to be the correct (or at least what I see to be the 'more correct') intent of the concept.

Thanks

I think the misunderstood term is happiness. You mention that the smile on your son's face ect were all pleasures you seek. That you seek them suggests that you are not happy when they are not present, or at least less happy when they are not present. You, like all the rest of us, ride an emotional roller coaster that is influenced by external events and your own desires: that is not happiness.
Nothing wrong with your son's smile, or helping a neighbor, quite the opposite. The problem is that they make the disquietude of life easier to bear, maybe even eliminate the disquietude for a moment, but soon you find yourself back where you were.

@Pangloss,

Pangloss wrote:

Sounds like Huxley's "Brave New World". Let's all pop our soma and experience the 'infinite bliss'!

One person's utopia is another's dystopia.

'Sounds like' is your argument?

do you think Soma accomplishes the objectives of Abolitionism? If so, why?

True we all have different ideas about how to pursue happiness. That's why the recommendation is to work through human rights aimed at allowing individuals to pursue happiness voluntarily.

@xris,

xris wrote:

I thought pleasure and happiness was is two different things..try smoking a ciggy its pleasure but not happiness..

They are. But isn't it a a narrow view that equates all pleasure to those things which usurp happiness? Many experiences are most-pleasurable, and include practices, relationships and good deeds that lead to a place many would call 'happiness'.

Or perhaps, is it your view that only the displeasurable, the painful, which leads to happiness?

Thanks

@Didymos Thomas,

"The word anesthetics was coined in the 1840s, after the invention of morphine, but man has used anesthetics since the beginning of time. We just tend to find more potent anesthetics over time. Morphine was first put to widespread use with the invention of the hypodermic needle - which occurred around the same time the term anesthetics was coined.

Anesthesia is ages old. It's use precedes the western world."

AB : I'll speak for David here - I think he is referring to the use of substances which allow us to be oblivious to pain, like being unconscious while we undergo an operation. His timeline might be wrong...

"The two are not analogous: eliminating physical pain and eliminating psychological suffering are two entirely different enterprises, except in those cases where psychological trouble causes physical pain."

AB : only if you believe in a difference between the two. We only experience physical pain as subjectively aversive experience. Sometimes we do it willingly when we believe or are conditioned to think that it will bring us pleasure afterwards or concurrently. You could say that pain receptors are active even when we do not notice but this still sends signals via the neurological system to the brain.

"Of course they suffer as you and I do: we're all human.

I'm not sure that's exactly how meditative practice works. You mention Buddhism; Buddhist teachers will be the first to tell you that eliminating suffering is no easy task."

AB: I mentioned this because you said that science was not needed to remove suffering, only the elimination of egocentrism.

David uses the title "Hedonistic Imperative" but this doesn't mean he advocates pleasure at the expense of lifelong individual happiness - I think the wording choice is mostly aimed at a catchy title

At any rate Abolitionism is officially not the quest to develop great short term pleasures so that we can become slaves or give up the quest for something greater

@Abolitionist,

Abolitionist wrote:

AB : I'll speak for David here - I think he is referring to the use of substances which allow us to be oblivious to pain, like being unconscious while we undergo an operation. His timeline might be wrong...

Two people using this account? That's fine, I'm just curious.

Anyway, yeah I figured that modern anesthetics were being referenced, but my point was that the author of the material from the website is suspect: even basic facts of history are confused.

Abolitionist wrote:

AB : only if you believe in a difference between the two. We only experience physical pain as subjectively aversive experience. Sometimes we do it willingly when we believe or are conditioned to think that it will bring us pleasure afterwards or concurrently. You could say that pain receptors are active even when we do not notice but this still sends signals via the neurological system to the brain.

Yes, there is a difference between my broken toe and my proverbially broken heart. Both are ultimately reducible to physical phenomenon.

Abolitionist wrote:

AB: I mentioned this because you said that science was not needed to remove suffering, only the elimination of egocentrism.

Then what was your point?

Abolitionist wrote:

David uses the title "Hedonistic Imperative" but this doesn't mean he advocates pleasure at the expense of lifelong individual happiness - I think the wording choice is mostly aimed at a catchy title

I'd recommend that David read some Confucius. Then he will understand about the rectification of names. That said, Abolitionism does seem to be a hedonistic perspective.

@Abolitionist,

Abolitionist;41105 wrote:

You're right Morphine was discovered earlier but when was the general use of anesthetics first implemented in widespread medical practice?

1846, first used in the Ether Dome at Massachusetts General Hospital. It caught on extremely quickly. You can go visit the Ether Dome at MGH if you're ever in Boston.

By the way, you guys need to get your terms straight!

Analgesia is elimination of pain. Morphine, Tylenol, etc are analgesics.

Anesthesia is elimination of sensation. Local anesthetics, like lidocaine and novocaine, abolish sensation at a specific site. General anesthetics (like ether and chloroform, though neither is used clinically anymore), eliminate all sensation (including consciousness).

The history of anesthesia and analgesia are different from one another!!

@Aedes,

Thanks for the medical clarification, Aedes! I was working under the impression that anesthesia was a broader term including things like analgesia.

@Abolitionist,

Laypeople sometimes use the word 'anesthesia' colloquially in a way that also refers to painkillers, but even in common medical parlance they are different things.

If you look at the etymology, it becomes clear:

First, an- means absence or removal.

Paresthesias are abnormal sensations (like tingling, like when your foot's asleep)
Synesthesia is the abnormal synthesis or combination of different senses
Hyperesthesia is excessive sensation -- like when your skin is very irritable to light touch when you have a fever

An antalgic gait is a limp (a manner of walking to avoid pain)
Myalgias are muscle pains
Arthralgias are joint pains

@Abolitionist,

Abolitionist;41268 wrote:

'Sounds like' is your argument?

do you think Soma accomplishes the objectives of Abolitionism? If so, why?

True we all have different ideas about how to pursue happiness. That's why the recommendation is to work through human rights aimed at allowing individuals to pursue happiness voluntarily.

What's your argument? You throw out these goals like "end suffering", just like many say they are "for world peace". Yet, you so far have not offered any real plans or ideas for accomplishing this goal. First, you might try to define "happiness" and "suffering", and then convince us why it is good to always have the former and not the latter. How would we even measure happiness without suffering, suffering without happiness?

So of course I won't have much more to argue right now, because you have not provided any type of concrete description and proposition relating to these goals that you have vaguely presented.

@Khethil,

Khethil wrote:

They are. But isn't it a a narrow view that equates all pleasure to those things which usurp happiness? Many experiences are most-pleasurable, and include practices, relationships and good deeds that lead to a place many would call 'happiness'.

Or perhaps, is it your view that only the displeasurable, the painful, which leads to happiness?

Thanks

Imsure certain pleasures can give happiness but happiness is a state of mind, possible fleeting when pleasure is involved. When i think of my children happiness is my feeling not physical pleasure..Ah thats it..physical pleasure and thoughtful pleasure... happiness...Thankyou again khethil for making me give it more thought..

@xris,

xris wrote:

Imsure certain pleasures can give happiness but happiness is a state of mind, possible fleeting when pleasure is involved. When i think of my children happiness is my feeling not physical pleasure..Ah thats it..physical pleasure and thoughtful pleasure... happiness...Thankyou again khethil for making me give it more thought..

happiness is a biological state of pleasure, that depends on many variables

pleasure is widely defined as a component of happiness

but really happiness = pleasure

what is happiness?

it hasn't been defined biologically so we use a definition for it based upon cultural norms

happiness is just a word meant to instill cultural values

Pangloss wrote:

What's your argument? You throw out these goals like "end suffering", just like many say they are "for world peace". Yet, you so far have not offered any real plans or ideas for accomplishing this goal. First, you might try to define "happiness" and "suffering", and then convince us why it is good to always have the former and not the latter. How would we even measure happiness without suffering, suffering without happiness?

So of course I won't have much more to argue right now, because you have not provided any type of concrete description and proposition relating to these goals that you have vaguely presented.

of course, i just recently came here to debate the prime ethical directive, I haven't had a chance to offer any specific policies, though there are many at my website

my ethic is that people should decide for themselves what happiness and suffering are

we can't measure happiness or suffering that's why human rights should be implemented to allow us to pursue happiness and alleviate suffering as we choose

this is very different from current practice

Quote:

Abolitionism does seem to be a hedonistic perspective

how do you qualify that? you haven't offered your rationale so I'll just dismiss it...

@Abolitionist,

Abolitionist wrote:

happiness is a biological state of pleasure, that depends on many variables

pleasure is widely defined as a component of happiness

but really happiness = pleasure

what is happiness?

it's hasn't been defined biologically so we use a definition for it based upon cultural norms

happiness is just a word meant to instill cultural values

Are these statements of fact or your opinion ? Happiness =pleasure but does pleasure= happiness..thats my opinion..As for biological do you mean neurons firing in my head?

@Abolitionist,

people always like to throw stones at a new path, that's what I expect

but really you are throwing stones at your own ability to pursue life, liberty, and happiness

the current rationales used to justify present policy are your enemy - and the ethic you create through open rational debate is your chance to develop an alternative and then go forth with this ethic into the world and make sure it is implemented

the purpose of debate is to get your thoughts straight and then take action, but first we must clarify our values

xris wrote:

Are these statements of fact or your opinion ? Happiness =pleasure but does pleasure= happiness..thats my opinion..As for biological do you mean neurons firing in my head?

yes pleasure is happiness, happiness is simply a pleasure that we subjectively evaluate according to social norms

we do have clues about how to measure it by observing the activity of specific brain functions

like the activity of the pleasure centers and the prefrontal cortex

if you use deep brain stimulation to inhibit the aversive circuitry and also stimulate the pleasure centers - subjects will report feeling subjectively happy

this is a testable theory that has already been demonstrated

happiness is just a word meant to describe a type of pleasure

the kind of pleasure whereby we are likely to subjectively tells others we are happy according to the definition of happiness provided (by culture)

"I feel good" is really saying that you feel happy

feeling good is feeling pleasure

we don't like the idea of being made happy at the touch of a button because it threatens social norms

yes it's possible that this power could be misused, that's why we need rights to determine how we want to pursue happiness

we don't like the idea of being made happy at the touch of a button because it threatens social norms

yes it's possible that this power could be misused, that's why we need rights to determine how we want to pursue happiness

Mod Edit - 4 posts in a row were merged into one. Please refrain from multiple posts. JK

@Abolitionist,

abolistionist, if you have more to add, don't post as a separate comment, you can amend your original post by edit if no other member has posted after your initial post.

Philosophy Forum

Infinite Bliss

Quick Links

My Account

able2know