Would a purely hedonistic society be a destructive one ?
A well balanced society is one where the arts meets the sciences meets education, this allows society to peak in terms of culture by creating well balanced citizens.
But what of hedonism and uncontrolled self indulgent pleasures of the senses would this, if it went unchecked have a negative effect on a higher cultured society, would it bring it down say or have these two always co-existed ?
Furthermore, would creating purely a hedonistic, pleasure seeking society have negative effects on the progress of humanity ?
But what of hedonism and uncontrolled self indulgent pleasures of the senses would this, if it went unchecked have a negative effect on a higher cultured society, would it bring it down say or have these two always co-existed ?
Furthermore, would creating purely a hedonistic, pleasure seeking society have negative effects on the progress of humanity ?
Comments (14)
It sounds like the already existing natural world. The whole foundation of civilization is built upon collective strength and thus individual weakness.
Why? I've been involved in a number of encounters wherein pleasure was mutual, shared and reciprocal.
Quoting simplyG
That depends on the proportions and the society's means of providing for basic needs. If the sciences, arts and education were made possible by the labour of an underclass deprived of all pleasures, and that underclass gave itself over to self-indulgence, the society would collapse very quickly. If the uncultured, toiling majority never tasted of pleasure at all, while the cultured minority produced nothing, the society would certainly be heading for a bloodbath. If a few people at a time took a break from productive endeavours to indulge themselves and then returned to work, the society would be fine.
Quoting simplyG
What progress of humanity? If circumstances were such that nature provided the necessities and everyone could indulge in sensual pleasure - assuming the pleasures indulged in were not sadistic or destructive - people would do no harm and they would never be banished from Eden. In fact, isn't that why Christians curb their mundane desires, so they can end up in Heaven?
I mean to say that pleasure always has both moments, the negative and positive. For instance, how often to you feel pleased at taking a shower, or having mashed potatoes? Five hundred years ago, half of the world would consider that a great pleasure. We see it in the pain of another who feels their lack in our place. Pleasure is a psycho-active identification of pain in another. It has a positive aspect too, but this negative side is always there alongside it.
Every single time. These are pure, innocent hedonistic pleasures that cause nobody any pain.
Quoting kudos
Only if it's denied to them because someone has it. My marital relations do not deny anyone else the enjoyment of physical love. My mashed potatoes were not stolen from anyone's table. My shower did not drain anyone's drinking water.
Quoting kudos
I disagree. (I held back a much ruder response. Where the hell do get these simplistic 1/0 ideas?)
Imagine the classic scenario of the marshmallow test for very young children. They're told if they can delay gratification for a bit they'll be rewarded with more marshmallows. If they didn't have an expectation of a any enjoyment, or the avoidance of pain, there would be no incentive to do anything.
Is the preference to avoid pain at the expense of transient moments of high pleasure, considered hedonistic?
Consider possible outcomes of a more sadistic version of the marshmallow test. The children are told that they will be harshly beaten if they eat the marshmallows that sit on table in their room. Those that make the mistake get beaten. Would there be any children, who having lived through the experience of being beaten for eating the marshmallows, continue to choose to eat the marshmallows again and again because the pleasure of the eating outweighs the pain of the beating?
Even an ultimate pursuit of ascetic self-denial must have an incentive. The subject that demands such self-control must know the anticipation for reward/relief, even if it never comes.
That's the story of Genesis. Adam and Eve were pure hedonists before taking the fruit. They took it anyway, got the grandfather of all beatings, and yet did did continue to pursue knowledge, including expressly forbidden knowledge. Is that a Socratic tendency?
Quoting Nils Loc
I sup[pose the 'pleasure' being sought is either mastery over nature or Heaven.
These values are youth corrupting by how theyre not only tolerated but actively promoted by various powerful media agents to generate shallow interest and objectification and glorification of these sins whilst virtues are not worth a nickel.
The question is why? One of them is money which is the root of all evil as by participating in these 7 deadly sins not only does society become degenerate but ends up pursuing false ideals.
But what should be promoted instead? Well these come to mind: prudence, temperance, fortitude and justice in addition to kindness and charity.
Yet capitalism has no care for such virtues.
Sorry, there were four too many of those questions. :sweat:
Guess I merely stating my belief in psychological hedonism, that a pursuit of pleasure and the avoidance of pain is the primary source of human motivation.
That's the primary motivation of all living things. We humans make an elaborate song-and-dance about it, while a grasshopper just chews on leaves and leaps out of the way of the lawnmower.
Maybe wealth could be a proxy for a kind of capacity for pursuing pleasure and avoiding pain. The Gulf petrostates always come to mind when I think of dissolute hedonism. These countries/states are theocratic, conservative, Muslim, which contrasts absurdly with the most extreme kind of luxury eyes can behold, for privileged classes of course.
[quote= https://money.cnn.com/2016/10/20/news/saudi-government-workers-productivity/index.html]According to civil service minister Khaled Alaraj, many Saudi government employees are really only working for an hour each day.
Almost 70% of employed Saudi nationals -- more than 3 million -- hold jobs in the public sector, according to McKinsey. The cushy positions are highly coveted because they offer ironclad job security and lucrative salarie. [/quote]
One wonders how civil society functions within Saudi Arabia if a majority of its public sector only work a few hours a day. There must be a considerable underclass/immigrants holding things together. Some folks in a subreddit were commenting on this CNN article, sharing stories of how working with Saudi public sector was frustrating because they won't do what they consider "slave" work and instead have recourse to outsourcing tasks they don't want to do. This sounds so absurd and is probably awful for the stability of the nation in the face of possible economic downturns.
I think its the nature of public service workers to be somewhat complacent or lazy when it comes to work ethic, not bound for any need for profit this phenomena is widespread in the west too. One can look at Greece and their corrupt/incompetent/lazy public servants before Greece went bankrupt.
Sloth essentially one of the 7 deadly sins seems widespread in the public sector as the public sector does not have the same drive towards profit as most commercial organisations where cost efficiencies are paramount.
I don't think that is always true across the board these days. Many public service workers I know have to meet strict KPI's and productivity outcomes. And a worker's time and use of breaks are monitored and contracts are revoked it workers step out of strict program guidelines. The fact is that many public service roles these days are overseen by neo-liberal mechanisms which are generated by the same rapacious cocksuckers who dominate corporations - Deloitte, KPMG, McKinsey &Co, Nous Group etc.