What's so great about pleasure?

[MoonlessNight]

And what's so bad about suffering?

Seriously. I've never been able to understand why most people are so obsessed with maximizing pleasure and minimizing suffering.

 

[psychedelicist]

Because the world is full of a LOT of suffering and verry little pleasure. Might as well take what pleasure you can before the suffering hits again.

You can't have pleasure without suffering though. It's like having the concept of beauty without a concept of ugliness or an object with a front but no back. They are subjectively valued (meaning something might be pleasuring or beautiful to one person, but harmful or ugly to another), but you have to have one with the other. And unless you're a [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse], I'd assume the greatest amount of pleasure with the least amount of suffering would be good. Not that you can have one without the other. It's up to you I guess.

Or you could be a buddhist and try and rid yourself of both.

 

[Jacob4Jesus]

it's pleasurable.

 

[TrueQ]

There's no need to maximize or minimize anything. Try a less extreme example:

Would you rather have a pretty woman (or man) making eyes at you or step on a tack? Rather have a crunchy, crisp Taco Bell meal or a nasty flu?

Its plain to see why you would desire one over another, even go through the effort to search one out and acheive it. The small things in this world are often just as important as the large ones, so don't deny yourself the glorious indulgence of a cigarette after work or a luxurious Saturday nap any more than grand rapturous acts of the flesh to lewd to mention.

 

[Eudaimonist]

You can't have pleasure without suffering though.

I hate it when people say this. Yes, you can have pleasure without suffering because it is only the logical possibility (not the necessity) of suffering that must exist in order to logically form the concept "pleasure".

 

[FreezBee]

And what's so bad about suffering?

Seriously. I've never been able to understand why most people are so obsessed with maximizing pleasure and minimizing suffering.

Well, each to their own, I'd say

Pleasure is by definition what you strive to maximize, and some have pleasure from suffering.


cheers

- FreezBee

 

[stumpjumper]

And what's so bad about suffering?

Seriously. I've never been able to understand why most people are so obsessed with maximizing pleasure and minimizing suffering.

Suffering and pleasure are both relative and subjective experiences. People can experience redemtive suffering in times of trouble or melancholy when things are OK. It is generally how we react to our suffering or times of pleasure that makes the difference. A moderate drinker enjoys having a beer yet alcoholics will say they get no pleasure from drinking they just cannot stop.

In the Count of Monte Cristo, the Count told Maximillien that Valentine had died and Maximillien despaired and wished for death for several days. Right before Maximillien was about to commit suicide, the Count revealed that Valentine was truly alive and then the Count gave them a bunch of money. I think, its been a while since I read the book.

Anyway, so the Count then sent a letter to a Maximillien that said "As for you Maximilien , her is the secret of my conduct toward you: there is neither happiness no unhappiness in this world; there is only the comparison of one state with another. Only a man who has felt ultimate despair is capable of feeling ultimate bliss. It is necessary to have wished for death, Maximilien, in order to know how good it is to live."

I don't think you have to wish for death to enjoy life but suffering and pleasure are relative concepts.

 

[TeddyKGB]

it's pleasurable.

That's pretty much it. Pleasure is pleasing by definition.

 

[Eudaimonist]

And what's so bad about suffering?

Do you find suffering attractive?

Normally... pleasure attracts, suffering repells. Pleasure motivates, suffering demotivates. Pleasure suggests successful action, suffering implies failure. Pleasure is associated with health, and suffering with malady.

It is difficult to imagine a desirable life without at least some pleasure as an ingredient. (Perhaps pleasure need not be "maximized" in some mathematical sense, but at least needs to be present in good measure.)

But perhaps we need to distinguish between different kinds of suffering. If suffering is something one heroically bears in order to achieve some kind of worthwhile success (such as bearing the pain of running a marathon), then it may be regarded as a necessary evil. However, if suffering is perceived as arising from great loss and a feeling of helplessness, it may be difficult to justify to oneself.

I personally regard meaning as more important in life than pleasure. The meaning of your life is what should be "maximized" (though I really don't think of this in a mathematical way, since there are no units to measure this with).

 

[DailyBlessings]

Well, some find pleasure in suffering.

Why else would Minnesota be populated?

 

[Spinrad]

And what's so bad about suffering?

Seriously. I've never been able to understand why most people are so obsessed with maximizing pleasure and minimizing suffering.

Simple. Pleasure = survival. Suffering = threat to survival. Animals want to survive.

 

[savvy]

Simple. Pleasure = survival. Suffering = threat to survival. Animals want to survive.

Bingo! (oh, wait, bingo is a sin...)

 

[MoonlessNight]

I'd assume the greatest amount of pleasure with the least amount of suffering would be good.

Why?

 

[MoonlessNight]

it's pleasurable.

But does that necessarily mean that it is desirable?

 

[MoonlessNight]

There's no need to maximize or minimize anything. Try a less extreme example:

Would you rather have a pretty woman (or man) making eyes at you or step on a tack? Rather have a crunchy, crisp Taco Bell meal or a nasty flu?

Its plain to see why you would desire one over another, even go through the effort to search one out and acheive it. The small things in this world are often just as important as the large ones, so don't deny yourself the glorious indulgence of a cigarette after work or a luxurious Saturday nap any more than grand rapturous acts of the flesh to lewd to mention.

It's not that I don't see that pleasure is usually preferable to suffering, but rather that I don't think that it's worth exerting much effort to seek one over the other. And I certainly don't understand it when people base there entire world view on the seeking of one over the other.

Sure I would prefer a nice meal over a disease. But if it was necessary to have a disease, or to abstain from pleasure, to act in a good way or to better myself then I would do that without complaint.

I see it a bit like how many people treat money. All things considered it's probably better to have more money than to have less money. But is it really worth putting the pursuit of money above other things?

 

[MoonlessNight]

Pleasure is by definition what you strive to maximize

If that's the meaning of pleasure than most discussion about pleasure that I have heard is meaningless.

 

[MoonlessNight]

Do you find suffering attractive?

Normally... pleasure attracts, suffering repells. Pleasure motivates, suffering demotivates. Pleasure suggests successful action, suffering implies failure. Pleasure is associated with health, and suffering with malady.

It is difficult to imagine a desirable life without at least some pleasure as an ingredient. (Perhaps pleasure need not be "maximized" in some mathematical sense, but at least needs to be present in good measure.)

But perhaps we need to distinguish between different kinds of suffering. If suffering is something one heroically bears in order to achieve some kind of worthwhile success (such as bearing the pain of running a marathon), then it may be regarded as a necessary evil. However, if suffering is perceived as arising from great loss and a feeling of helplessness, it may be difficult to justify to oneself.

I personally regard meaning as more important in life than pleasure. The meaning of your life is what should be "maximized" (though I really don't think of this in a mathematical way, since there are no units to measure this with).

This is close to what I think. Pleasure and suffering should be above all else secondary concerns. The only thing is that I don't know whether I would call suffering a "necessary evil." If its necessary for someone (not for everyone) to live a good life, I can't see it as being evil. By the same token I could easily call pleasure a "necessary evil" because pleasure often leads one away from the good life.

 

[MoonlessNight]

Well, some find pleasure in suffering.

This is exactly what I was referring to. I question worrying too much about pleasure and suffering, and a post responds that suffering can be pleasurable. It's as if to some people it is unbelievable that pleasure simply isn't very important to me. If I have no issues with being morose than it must because I find it pleasurable to be like that.

 

[psychedelicist]

I hate it when people say this. Yes, you can have pleasure without suffering because it is only the logical possibility (not the necessity) of suffering that must exist in order to logically form the concept "pleasure".

OK, that's true, and it's actually what I meant. In order to have a concept of beauty, you also need a concept of what ugliness would be, but that doesn't necessarily mean anything in the universe fits your definition of ugly. Still, I find it very difficult to believe that anyone who has ever lived has managed to completely rid himself of all suffering and unpleasantries, without also ridding himself of pleasure. But it would be a logical possibility I suppose

 

[Prometheus_ash]

...You can't have pleasure without suffering though. It's like having the concept of beauty without a concept of ugliness or an object with a front but no back. They are subjectively valued (meaning something might be pleasuring or beautiful to one person, but harmful or ugly to another), but you have to have one with the other. And unless you're a [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse], I'd assume the greatest amount of pleasure with the least amount of suffering would be good. Not that you can have one without the other. It's up to you I guess.

Or you could be a buddhist and try and rid yourself of both.

You don't need suffering to understand pleasure, they are not two sides of the same coins, but rather independent concepts. Admittedly, it often helps to understand somethings opposite to help make said something more understandable, but is not necessary.

Do you need to understand "hot" to understand "cold"? Or is it enough to experience "hot", in contrast with plain old warm.

It is enough to be able to understand a concept of pain with out any concept of pleasure, and only be able to compare to a "lack" of pain, or deficiency of pain. Pleasure is the same, as it can be understood in terms on it's own, without resorting to it's opposite.

Opposite (such as pleasure and pain) are not a logical requirement for understanding something.