REMINDER: SUNDAY WEEKLY ZOOM - May 17, 2026 -12:30 PM EDT - Ancient text study and discussion: De Rerum Natura - - Level 03 members and above (and Level 02 by Admin. approval) - read more info on it here.
New Graphics: Are You On Team Epicurus? | Comparison Chart: Epicurus vs. Other Philosophies | Chart Of Key Epicurean Quotations | Accelerating Study Of Canonics Through Philodemus' "On Methods Of Inference" | Note to all users: If you have a problem posting in any forum, please message Cassius
What about those who would argue til they are blue in the face that that do what they do "Because they believe it's the right thing to do, regardless of whether it gives me pleasure or not, and I know that often it won't.
Q: Why do you want to do the right thing?
A1: For it's own sake (translation: believing that I did "the right thing" will give me more pleasure than believing I did the wrong thing).
A2: Heaven/hell (obvious)
What about those who would argue til they are blue in the face...
Also, I wouldn't argue with people about this, especially if they are prone to getting blue in the face. Questioning someone's self-image or motivations is unlikely to go well.
Mainly I see it as a useful tool for understanding other people's actions. If someone wants to have a reasonable discussion, fine. But that seems increasingly rare.
Please clarify what it is when you said this is where you lose the trail of "why this is a productive theory or productive position to take."
Mainly I see it as a useful tool for understanding other people's actions
If someone is willing to lie to themselves, what purpose does it serve to engage with them?
Is this not just a kind of pointless "psychologizing" that leads nowhere?
People can be mistaken. People can lie to themselves. Is it not enough simply to acknowledge that these are possibilities and then deal with individual people and circumstances as they occur?
Does it accomplish or help something or someone to say "These people are really pursuing pleasure even though they deny it will all their mind and spirit?"
Why not just say: "At birth before there is any possibility of corruption all living things pursue pleasure and avoid pain."
I would say they're lying to themselves because they despise the idea of pleasure.
I see your logic in that, but this is where I lose the trail of why this is a productive theory to pursue or position to take.
This is the bedrock foundation of what it means for "Pleasure is the Goal." Pleasure is THE motivating factor behind all decisions, choices, actions. The goal of Epicurean philosophy is to follow the Goal of Nature wisely and not haphazardly or to leave life to chance.
Why not just say: "At birth before there is any possibility of corruption all living things pursue pleasure and avoid pain."
That seems a little milquetoast. It's true, but Pleasure Is The Goal/End/Telos seems to be fundamental truth in how nature works.
I'm not advocating for arguing with blue-faced people about their motivations. If they desire to live in anger, fear, and delusion, so be it. We can offer a way out, but we shouldn't go out of our way to antagonize the lost.
Epicurus looked from Nature's flaming ramparts and saw the cosmos as it is. Pleasure is the Goal was a declaration of The Way Things Are.
Does it accomplish or help something or someone to say "These people are really pursuing pleasure even though they deny it will all their mind and spirit?"
We are coming at this from different perspectives.
You seem to be looking at this (psychological hedonism) as an argument for pursuing pleasure consciously. I agree that it is not a great tool for that because it tends to make people dig in their heels and deny that they are pursuing pleasure.
I am looking at it as an accurate description of reality, in which sense I think it is very helpful.
For example, if someone tells me they are doing something for an altruistic reason, it leads me to ask, "OK, how are they really getting pleasure out of this?"
Maybe they really are a good person, and it makes them feel good to do the right thing. Or maybe there is a more nefarious motivation.
Why not just say: "At birth before there is any possibility of corruption all living things pursue pleasure and avoid pain.
I've never thought this was a very strong argument.
An infant may be free from the influences of society, but an infant is also not yet a fully developed human.
I see no reason to take for granted that we should emulate the unconscious or semi-conscious behaviors of a newborn.
(I'm not saying the argument is wrong, just that it seems open to this objection, and I have not seen a convincing response.)
We are coming at this from different perspectives.
You seem to be looking at this (psychological hedonism) as an argument for pursuing pleasure consciously. I agree that it is not a great tool for that because it tends to make people dig in their heels and deny that they are pursuing pleasure.
I am looking at it as an accurate description of reality, in which sense I think it is very helpful.
For example, if someone tells me they are doing something for an altruistic reason, it leads me to ask, "OK, how are they really getting pleasure out of this?"
Maybe they really are a good person, and it makes them feel good to do the right thing. Or maybe there is a more nefarious motivation.
I would concur with this analysis, with emphasis added.
I've never thought this was a very strong argument.
That's very interesting. Don do you agree with that too?
I can see the arguments on both sides and don't have a lot more to add at the moment, but I am adding a summary of what I understand the positions to be into the FAQ at the following entry:
I can see the arguments on both sides and don't have a lot more to add at the moment, but I am adding a summary of what I understand the positions to be into the FAQ at the following entry:
https://www.epicureanfriends.com/wcf/faq-questi…oth-or-neither/
My response to the arguments against psychological hedonism there would be as follows:
Psychological hedonism only claims that people pursue pleasure, not that they succeed in obtaining it.
The individual is still faced with the problem of predicting which future state is likely to afford the most pleasure, and choosing the most effective means for achieving that state. These are not trivial problems. Psychological hedonism does not at all make philosophy irrelevant. (It is not determinism.)
I've never thought this was a very strong argument.
That's very interesting. Don do you agree with that too?
I'm more receptive to the argument from infants and animals.
An infant may be free from the influences of society, but an infant is also not yet a fully developed human.
I see no reason to take for granted that we should emulate the unconscious or semi-conscious behaviors of a newborn.
An infant is fully human, just not a fully formed adult. Same with animals, they are also living beings. Epicurus' argument is that all living beings pursue pleasure and flee pain. Animals and infants have no cultural or social filter.
I also don't think we should emulate infants or children in behavior, and I don't think Epicurus was saying that. He was looking for the foundational, bedrock telos before culture corrupted that telos. Why do we do what we do? Living beings pursue pleasure and avoid pain. Once Epicurus identified the telos, he emphasized the use of reason and prudence to wisely and purposefully follow the pursuit of pleasure.
Psychological hedonism does not at all make philosophy irrelevant.
That's part of my unease with the entire discussion - I am not aware that there is a single authoritative statement of what psychological hedonism really means, or what should be taken to be its implications. I don't have any problem with the idea that everyone pursues their own self-interest or what they thing benefits them most. I have a big problem with the idea that some people have about what really benefits them. It's the implications of the idea beyond just the bare statement that people pursue what they think benefits them that cause me the most concern. But I don't see this as a bridge to wage too big a battle on, at least until people start getting very specific about implications and applications.
