Scientific proof of hedonism

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
Matt,

One can prove without science that every conscious entity is guided by the Perception of Hope and Threat, PHT. And if one also understands that, in the abstract sense, the feeling of joy/pleasure/happiness is instigated by the perception of progress toward a perceived hope (whether actual or illusion) then it can be said that your "feelings of pleasure" and its antithesis are the complete guide for consciousness. And pedantically that can be called "hedonism". Thus the kind of proof that you seem to desire is available to be made, although I have to question the purpose in doing so.

What is it that you would not call hedonism if the above definitive proof had been established? What theory would you be arguing against? If you imagine it to be an argument against religions, you would be incorrect because of how you defined your hedonism.

It is clear that you currently sense hope to at least a very small degree. And if you could not feel a sense of satisfaction or slight joy/pleasure as you pursued your hopes, you would not be pursuing any action at all, such as writing the OP. The simple fact that you make conscious decisions reveals that you sense a degree of joy/pleasure. But normally that is not what is called "hedonism", even if technically defined as such.

So I would like to know what you envision as non-hedonism or anti-hedonism .. ?

Members don't see this ad.
 
Last edited:
Matt,

One can prove without science that every conscious entity is guided by the Perception of Hope and Threat, PHT. And if one also understands that, in the abstract sense, the feeling of joy/pleasure/happiness is instigated by the perception of progress toward a perceived hope (without actual or illusion) then it can be said that your "feelings of pleasure" and its antithesis are the complete guide for consciousness. And pedantically that can be called "hedonism". Thus the kind of proof that you seem to desire is available to be made, although I have to question the purpose in doing so.

What is it that you would not call hedonism if the above definitive proof had been established? What theory would you be arguing against? If you imagine it to be an argument against religions, you would be incorrect because of how you defined your hedonism.

It is clear that you currently sense hope to at least a very small degree. And if you could not feel a sense of satisfaction or slight joy/pleasure as you pursued your hopes, you would not be pursuing any action at all, such as writing the OP. The simple fact that you make conscious decisions reveals that you sense a degree of joy/pleasure. But normally that is not what is called "hedonism", even if technically defined as such.

So I would like to know what you envision as non-hedonism or anti-hedonism .. ?

My personal definition of non-hedonism would be for you to have a sense of life still worth living and that your personal life is still good without your feelings of pleasure. Hedonism obviously being that one's own personal life can only be good and worth living if he/she has feelings of pleasure in his/her life.
 
Last edited:
Now I would like to add one more very important thing here which is that, 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.
 
Last edited:
I am pretty certain that in the English speaking world the concept of hedonism infers an irrational priority for pleasure and pain. You seem to be wanting to include rational choices as hedonism as well and that merely makes hedonism defined as any and all choices. No conscious entity is going to choose toward a direction without a perception or sense of hope inspired by the direction. That sense of hope is felt by a sense that we also call "good" and also at least a very minute degree of pleasure. What you are calling "merely thoughts" do not inspire decisions concerning actions.

If I sensed joy from doing only the most rational things for my life and displeasure by doing anything different than that, would you call that hedonism?

Or if I derived pleasure out of obeying my priest in all things and felt displeasure in doing otherwise, is that also hedonism?
 
Last edited:
Top