Hedonist Members:
ISTP
ISFP
ESFP
ESTP
YAY!!! Okay, I've done lots of drugs, <3 excellent food and wine, and live for great sex. How about you?
Hedonists
Hedonist Members:
ISTP
ISFP
ESFP
ESTP
YAY!!! Okay, I've done lots of drugs, <3 excellent food and wine, and live for great sex. How about you?
X
www
ILE "Searcher"
Socionics: ENTp
DCNH: Dominant
--> perhaps Normalizing
Enneagram: 7w6 "Enthusiast"
MBTI: ENTJ "Field Marshall" or ENTP "Inventor"
Astrological sign: Aquarius
To learn, read. To know, write. To master, teach.
6w5 sx
model Φ: -+0
sloan - rcuei
I'm into all that, but, like implied said, it's not what I live for.
But, for a certainty, back then,
We loved so many, yet hated so much,
We hurt others and were hurt ourselves...
Yet even then, we ran like the wind,
Whilst our laughter echoed,
Under cerulean skies...
I don't particularly care about those things, though I enjoy them!
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
Those things aren't the things SEEs and SLEs live for...
Pick other extrovertes to be your hedonists
lol I didn't make up the list!
I would personally think that ESFjs and ESTjs would be more hedonistic than ESXps.
Probably all the four-types, plus their duals, who find hedonism at times a refreshing balance.
Probably. The ESxps tend to neglect themselves (though you wouldn't think this if you saw their hair care products).
that describes more than just ESFps...
I disagree with the list of types that are suppose to be "hedonistic", but regardless a better word is "Utilitarianistic," which not only does not have the same negitive connotation that the word "hedonism" does, not all Utilitarianist are hedonist even though they tend to follow the same line of thinking [if it feels good, do it and avoid the bad!]Hedonist Members:
ISTP
ISFP
ESFP
ESTP
YAY!!! Okay, I've done lots of drugs, <3 excellent food and wine, and live for great sex. How about you?
Why the fuck hedonism has a negative connotation? I think you've been brainwashed by the curch, rmcnew.
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
There are people who look at hedonism positivelly and there are people that look at hedonism negitativelly ... apparently some are in the former and there are a few in the latter. And that "brainwashed by the church" statement seems pretty ignorant if you ask me, which was also something I was trying to avoid by saying that a better word to use is "Utilitarianistic." People are not going to look at the word and immediatelly associate it with perverted drug induced lowlifes or similar, even though the view points are related.Originally Posted by FDG
It's pretty clear from your comment that you associate, maybe an unconscious level, hedonism with bad.There are people who look at hedonism positivelly and there are people that look at hedonism negitativelly ... apparently some are in the former and there are a few in the latter. And that "brainwashed by the church" statement seems pretty ignorant if you ask me, which was also something I was trying to avoid by saying that a better word to use is "Utilitarianistic." People are not going to look at the word and immediatelly associate it with perverted drug induced lowlifes or similar, even though the view points are related.
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
I would say I do like those things, but either way. I can be just as good without. Give me those things at the spur of the moment is what I look for.
ILE
I do associate it with bad, because I belong to the latter category which does not necessarily value doing anything just because it feels good. And I do not appreciate deflammatory statements like "the church has brainwashed you" by belonging to the latter category. Not only was that not the case at all, it was a totally unnecessary statement to make.It's pretty clear from your comment that you associate, maybe an unconscious level, hedonism with bad.There are people who look at hedonism positivelly and there are people that look at hedonism negitativelly ... apparently some are in the former and there are a few in the latter. And that "brainwashed by the church" statement seems pretty ignorant if you ask me, which was also something I was trying to avoid by saying that a better word to use is "Utilitarianistic." People are not going to look at the word and immediatelly associate it with perverted drug induced lowlifes or similar, even though the view points are related.
It's not so much that all I can think about is feeling good or that I can't go through something unpleasant. I think hedonism is just a tendency. It's not something I think about, just something I do. If you look at my past it's pretty apparent. Hedonism, like all things, is healthy when it's balanced.
Oookay, I apologize!
Though I can't see anything bad with hedonism as long as the hedonist doesn't hurt other people in the process.
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
6w5 sx
model Φ: -+0
sloan - rcuei
It seems that all of these typologies somehow fall into "it depends" arguments.
Binary or dichotomous systems, although regulated by a principle, are among the most artificial arrangements that have ever been invented. -- William Swainson, A Treatise on the Geography and Classification of Animals (1835)
I have always disliked hedonism although I have been guilty of it sometimes. I have often thought about why I do have this negative way of looking at hedonistic pursuits and many other people don't. Why I have to feel guilty everytime I have been a hedonistic bitch?
Looking at your statement it might be related to the fact that many people feel they don't have any obligations towards other people. Like you said many people think "if I don't actively hurt people no one should complain".
In my opinion you can also "hurt" people by not doing enough. If someone weak is bullied by a stronger one you can think "I'm not the one doing the bullying so my conscience is clear, I can go on with my hedonistic pursuits". I can never think like that. I may not always act but that is only because I'm a weak mortal and not a superhero who can shoot laser beams out of his c***.
The point being I don't like hedonistic activities because from the "global" point of view there is always a better option to spend your time and efforts. Hedonism is only "allowed" when it is necessary to feed your immediate needs and energize you. With zero hedonism you probably won't be as effective in your serious pursuits.
Your example is not much coherent with what I had in mind. I was thinking more on the line of doing drugs, or having mindless sex with both people knowing that it's just mindless sex.
Basically, with what you say here, you mean that before doing anything that is pleasurable for you, you should bring justice into all the unjust situations of the world. This is just inefficient! In the end, you will waste much more resorces with that kind of behaviour, and probably end in a lose-lose situation for both you and the helped! Of course, this is not valid in the case of a bullying done while you're watching the scene.
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
I totally disagree with FDG ... XoX is on the right track with what he said.
I think that if someone stands around and lets a bully beat up someone weaker than him or her and can make a diffrence, but does not, then that makes 3 losers as opposed to just 1, the bully ... why not make a diffrence if you can?
I think hedonism is seen as bad by alot of religions because they see some extra worldy goal as the pinnacle of the teaching, and anything which deviates from that teaching is wrong because they say it leads you away from the goal. I think thats where most people get their idea that hedonism is bad.
Personally, I dont think pleasure is a cerebral thing, its a bodily thing, so thinking about it makes little difference, its your current bodily state that induces the direction that your thoughts go. If you're in lack of pleasure, you're either in too much pain to think about anything except stopping the pain, or, if there isnt too much pain, you can come up with a solution to your lack of pleausre. If you're in a state of pleasure, you dont think about getting pleasure.
So if you define hedonism as a mental strategy for pleasure, then its obvious that hedonism is associated with "utalitarianism", is opposed to the teachings of most religions, and is seen as bad-because you're in lack of pleausre!
I agree though, that its cruel of most religions to not allow people to come up with solutions to their problems, "god will do it for you", never got anyone anywhere in this world.
Then re-read my post, mcnew, please, because I openly stated that IF YOU ARE THERE WHEN SOMEONE IS BULLIED, you must intervene.
I interpreted XoX's as a general stance towards the world, where before doing anything pleasurable you have to eradicate all the wrongdoings.
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
Believeing God will do something for you is not a bad thing ... what is bad is using a God as an excuse not to act when you should be acting and doing what you are suppose to be doing as a healthy individual. People who use God as an excuse not to exert effort to improve their own quality of life and the quality of life of others are not typically the healthiest of individuals, and are really doing more harm than good.
What is described above is called categorical imperialism ... it is the belief that following a concrete set of rules with lead away from pain, suffering, and the negitive despite how one feels about something in the process, as opposed to the Utilitarianist viewpoint that having good vibes means you are experiencing the positive, and not experiencing the bad of negitive effects something. Categorical imperialist and Utilitarians are typically at odds with one another and that is to be expected.I think hedonism is seen as bad by alot of religions because they see some extra worldy goal as the pinnacle of the teaching, and anything which deviates from that teaching is wrong because they say it leads you away from the goal. I think thats where most people get their idea that hedonism is bad.
Interesting. Im not sure which school I fit into, probably I've always fit into the utalitarian viewpoint, thats probably what I do most naturally. The other viewpoint is risky- how do you know you're really heading away from pain if the process is not pleasureabale? "It is the path, and not the end of the path, that matters" (Dalai Lama)
Well basically this was the messageBut this is idealistic view. In practice I "allow" doing pleasurable things if it gives you motivation and strength to go on with your "eradication of wrongdoings" process.
Anyways what bothers me most is if the pleasures/hedonism is the goal not a tool.
you guys debate too much. Bottom line, sex = good.
HEDONIST as defined by dictionary.com. n : someone motivated by desires for sensual pleasures
@Everybody. What do you mean by "hedonism"? It seems that some of you are talking about hedonism as a tendency to seek pleasure, living for the moment, or something like that. I agree with you that SPs could be more hedonistic in that sense in general than other types, but hedonism is also, like utilitarianism, something very specific in ethics. In fact, the Swedish philosopher Torbjörn Tännsjö is a defender of the ethical theory hedonistic utilitarianism, which means that he believes that the only thing that has an intrinsic value is well-being (roughly the same as pleasure) and that it is our duty to maximize well-being.
hedonism is a thing
hedonist is a person
Maybe I should have elaborated on my post. I wanted to make the point that hedonism is nothing degrading. I like your post Phaedrus. You raise excellent points.
Thanks, Functianalyst.
You should acknowledge that hedonistic utilitarianism is not quite the same as "hedonism." Hedonistic utilitarianism says nothing about what these pleasures are, whereas "hedonism" identifies these pleasures strictly. In some sense, hedonism is a stronger definition than hedonistic utilitarianism, and that hedonistic utilitarianism properly includes hedonism. For example, (this is completely hypothetical) I can be a hedonistic utilitarian provided that I follow absolute celibacy if following such a policy actually gives me pleasure and makes me happy but clearly I am not a "hedonist."
However, this distinction doesn't really matter as far as your post is concerned. It is very easy to believe that hedonistic utilitarianism is a good ethical philosophy. But, if you really believe that, then you also implicitly believe that hedonism is a good thing. So it is actually easier to trick "anti-hedonists" into a contradiction by convincing them that hedonistic utilitarianism is a good thing and then showing them that "hedonism" is also a good thing, follows. (I am not making an argument for hedonist utilitarianism (the last time I studied utilitarianism and its many versions, I noticed that they were incompatible with my own ethical principles)).
WYM123, you are on point with your first paragraph. I was not following the debate on hedonst utilitarinism, but what little I did read had me thinking along the lines of your assertions.
I must agree that the latter does provide a more comprehensiveness, which itself justifies that hedonism does not pertain to strictly pleasure seeking.
Beyond the actual word used, it seems to me that an unbalanced motivation to have fun can be destructive, if you look at it objectively. It's a great and beautiful thing to enjoy, to enjoy life, to have a sense of fun. But when that's what one lives for, it leads to all kinds of problems.
Drugs lead to being an addict, losing everything, living on the street eventually.
Too little inhibition leads to betrayal of the relationships one values.
Too much focus on ones own pleasure leads to lack of sensitivity about someone else being hurt.
Too much time spent with entertainments leads to lost time, and failure to accomplish the things one wanted to accomplish.
It's just a fact, you can't get around it, unfortunately.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
