(March 8, 2026 at 6:26 pm)Angrboda Wrote: My issue is that there are other things we seek out because of their intrinsic qualities besides pleasurable experiences.  

Yes, I don't think that anybody is arguing that we ONLY choose pleasurable experiences. There are many other reasons to do things. 

Quote:There's some evidence that people find meaningful experiences worth seeking regardless of the emotional concommitants.  

I don't doubt that. There are lots of meaningful experiences which are unpleasant. But pleasantness is not the only emotional reaction possible. Satisfaction from doing one's duty, for example, is an important motivator, though the duty itself may be onerous. 

If the question is "What is pleasure?" then it makes sense to go on from there, and ask whether pleasure is the only thing worth pursuing. I don't think any reasonable person would make that argument. 

Quote:And a recent scientific article pointed out that while emotionally pleasurable and meaningful experiences are typical drivers of behavior, novelty and exploration is a generally unacknowledged third rail.  

This part I'm not understanding. When you say "third rail," do you mean we don't want to touch it? That novelty and exploration is something that people generally avoid? I'm not seeing that. 

I also think that having new experiences can give pleasure, depending on what they are. Something that's new (for me) can give a pleasurable thrill. I am hardly a brave explorer, but I very much enjoyed walking around cities in China without a map, just to see what I'd see. That was fun. 

So I guess I'm not understanding your argument here.

Quote:Neurology doesn't admit of the simulteneity proposed here

Why not? When I am walking along the river bank on a nice day, and the cherry blossoms are out, I am feeling pleasure. It certainly seems as though the pleasure is simultaneous with the activity. 

Quote:and depending upon your theory of emotion and feeling, the characteristics which we associate as pleasure may be secondary characteristics.  As a strict matter, we engage in behaviors that evoke emotions or feelings; the emotions or feelings aren't properly speaking a part of the experience itself.

Again, when I am engaged in some activity I am also having emotions. If it's a nice thing, I feel pleasure. If I'm totally messing up some carpentry project, I feel frustration. The emotions are happening during the action, and I feel them at the same time. Granted, emotion recollected in tranquility, after the fact, may be different and might be stronger and more lasting. But that doesn't mean that there is no genuine emotion at the time.

(March 9, 2026 at 3:43 am)Belacqua Wrote:

(March 8, 2026 at 6:26 pm)Angrboda Wrote: My issue is that there are other things we seek out because of their intrinsic qualities besides pleasurable experiences.  

Yes, I don't think that anybody is arguing that we ONLY choose pleasurable experiences. There are many other reasons to do things. 

Are there really, many other reasons? That's probably a delusion....seeking pleasure drives us to act....anything else is based in fantasy, I think.

(March 10, 2026 at 2:23 am)Ahriman Wrote:

(March 9, 2026 at 3:43 am)Belacqua Wrote: Yes, I don't think that anybody is arguing that we ONLY choose pleasurable experiences. There are many other reasons to do things. 

Are there really, many other reasons? That's probably a delusion....seeking pleasure drives us to act....anything else is based in fantasy, I think.

That's an important question, I think. Maybe the answer depends on how we end up defining what pleasure is. 

So let me suggest some things that we do where the pursuit of pleasure isn't obvious:

~ Some medical procedure that's entirely unpleasant but necessary to stay alive. 

~ A duty we have toward some other person, even though doing it is unpleasant. 

~ Obeying some law, like paying taxes, which we do simply to avoid getting in trouble with the law. 

If we do these, I guess we could end up with a sense of satisfaction. I am pleased that I endured the medical procedure because it will allow me to stay alive long enough to have more pleasure in the future. I am pleased that I fulfilled my duty, because that is what good people do. I am glad the government won't punish me. 

So all these things DO end up in a kind of pleasure, though it's different from what I was talking about before. It's not pleasure as an aspect of some pleasurable activity, like listening to music. But I can see that people take pleasure in the fact that they have acted correctly, put up with things in order to achieve a desirable end, etc. 

Perhaps English should be more subtle. If there were different words for satisfaction-pleasure as opposed to activity-pleasure, it would be more clear. 

Aristotle says that a good person is one who gets pleasure from doing what is good. So such a person WOULD get activity-pleasure from paying his taxes properly. (Which I don't.) 

I think that earlier I mentioned two theories of pleasure. The first is that it is an aspect of an activity, like listening to music. The second is that it is a by-product of living in the way that we ought to be living. In this second sense, we don't actively aim for pleasure, we aim to be good people. But being good also gives us pleasure as a bonus. 

Your take on things is often different from other people here -- what is your opinion on this? Do you think that absolutely everything you do is motivated by a desire for pleasure? Is there anything which gives you no pleasure, but you do it anyway? I'm curious.

(March 10, 2026 at 7:54 am)Belacqua Wrote:

(March 10, 2026 at 2:23 am)Ahriman Wrote: Are there really, many other reasons? That's probably a delusion....seeking pleasure drives us to act....anything else is based in fantasy, I think.

That's an important question, I think. Maybe the answer depends on how we end up defining what pleasure is. 

So let me suggest some things that we do where the pursuit of pleasure isn't obvious:

~ Some medical procedure that's entirely unpleasant but necessary to stay alive. 

~ A duty we have toward some other person, even though doing it is unpleasant. 

~ Obeying some law, like paying taxes, which we do simply to avoid getting in trouble with the law. 

If we do these, I guess we could end up with a sense of satisfaction. I am pleased that I endured the medical procedure because it will allow me to stay alive long enough to have more pleasure in the future. I am pleased that I fulfilled my duty, because that is what good people do. I am glad the government won't punish me. 

So all these things DO end up in a kind of pleasure, though it's different from what I was talking about before. It's not pleasure as an aspect of some pleasurable activity, like listening to music. But I can see that people take pleasure in the fact that they have acted correctly, put up with things in order to achieve a desirable end, etc. 

Perhaps English should be more subtle. If there were different words for satisfaction-pleasure as opposed to activity-pleasure, it would be more clear. 

Aristotle says that a good person is one who gets pleasure from doing what is good. So such a person WOULD get activity-pleasure from paying his taxes properly. (Which I don't.) 

I think that earlier I mentioned two theories of pleasure. The first is that it is an aspect of an activity, like listening to music. The second is that it is a by-product of living in the way that we ought to be living. In this second sense, we don't actively aim for pleasure, we aim to be good people. But being good also gives us pleasure as a bonus. 

Your take on things is often different from other people here -- what is your opinion on this? Do you think that absolutely everything you do is motivated by a desire for pleasure? Is there anything which gives you no pleasure, but you do it anyway? I'm curious.

Everything you posted is objectively wrong, but I'll answer your question about doing things that don't give me pleasure but I do it anyway, that would be listening to music, listening to music does not bring me pleasure at all....The only 2 ways I respond to hearing music, are getting hyped up, and experiencing pain.

We don't just care about our own pleasure, we also care about the pleasure of others that we care about. But then maybe giving them pleasure gives us pleasure.

We also care about suffering. In a negative way, we want to avoid it for ourselves and others we care about.

I define pleasure and displeasure in a very broad way. A pleasure is any experience that is worth having for its own sake, and not because it leads to something else that we value. So I see intrinsically good experiences and intrinsically pleasurable experiences as interchangeable.

A displeasure is any experience that is *not* worth having for its own sake.

Because I define pleasure very broadly it's able to account for things like aesthetic and intellectual pleasures, and not just mere sensory satisfaction.

An interesting question is how to categorize neutral experiences. Are they worth having? Well, they're not not worth having. So I guess that means they're worth having?

Perhaps we could talk about experiences worth having and experiences worth avoiding. And then experiences that are neither worth having nor worth avoiding, which are the neutral experiences.

To be clear, when I'm talking about experiences worth having or experiences not worth having, or worth avoiding or not worth avoiding, etc, I still mean *intrinsically*.

There are plenty of experiences that are instrumentally good but not pleasurable, not worth having for their own sake. Although that might be because they lead to something that either is pleasurable or lead to something that decreases/minimizes/avoids displeasure, pain, discomfort or suffering, etc.

Divorce, worth having. Divorce, worth avoiding.

(March 10, 2026 at 11:05 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote: Divorce, worth having.  Divorce, worth avoiding.

Right -- the idea that pleasure is either/or is a flawed premise in this entire discussion.

(March 10, 2026 at 8:41 am)Ahriman Wrote: listening to music does not bring me pleasure at all....The only 2 ways I respond to hearing music, are getting hyped up, and experiencing pain.

Now see, that's interesting. I knew you'd be likely to come up with something that no one else here would say.

Has you always responded this way to music? I seem to remember you used to like a pop star -- wasn't that your profile photo for a while? Or maybe you liked her image but not her music? 

Anyway, music is the normal go-to example for non-utilitarian pleasure, but it doesn't have to be the only one. Isn't there anything you enjoy for its own sake?

(March 10, 2026 at 9:55 am)Disagreeable Wrote: We don't just care about our own pleasure, we also care about the pleasure of others that we care about. But then maybe giving them pleasure gives us pleasure.

We also care about suffering. In a negative way, we want to avoid it for ourselves and others we care about.

This is good, I think. Experiences that would normally be unpleasant can give us pleasure if we're doing them for the good of someone else. 

Caring for elderly people, for example, can entail a number of activities that you would never choose to do "just for fun." But there is satisfaction in getting them done. The pleasure is certainly mixed -- dealing with something disgusting, so that you can do something important for someone else. 

So one thing we can conclude from this, I guess, is that pleasure depends on the situation. Even the go-to example, of listening to music, isn't guaranteed to be pleasurable. If, for example, the performers are terrible, or you're trying to concentrate on something else. I don't like background music in restaurants at all. Likewise the unpleasantness of certain things, while remaining unpleasant, is outweighed by the pleasure of doing something good. 

Quote:I define pleasure and displeasure in a very broad way. A pleasure is any experience that is worth having for its own sake, and not because it leads to something else that we value. So I see intrinsically good experiences and intrinsically pleasurable experiences as interchangeable.

Well, I think that's ONE way to define pleasure. We've been focussing on pleasure as a non-utilitarian experience enjoyed for its own sake. 

I think that people may use the word in other ways, though. If someone says he gets pleasure from accomplishing a utilitarian goal, I wouldn't tell him he was wrong. 

I also want to be wary of making "good" and "pleasurable" into synonyms. Though doing something good may well give pleasure in different ways, I feel that the two words have different meanings. 

Quote:Because I define pleasure very broadly it's able to account for things like aesthetic and intellectual pleasures, and not just mere sensory satisfaction.

This certainly seems true to me. There are various kinds of experience that give pleasure, including ones that are almost entirely sensory. But figuring out something that you've never understood before can be a great pleasure, even if that discovery has no utilitarian consequences. 

Quote:To be clear, when I'm talking about experiences worth having or experiences not worth having, or worth avoiding or not worth avoiding, etc, I still mean *intrinsically*.

Because you seem to be equating good experiences with pleasurable experiences, I'm not sure how "worth having" differs from one or the other of these words. 

Normally if we think of unpleasant experiences that are worth having, we're thinking of some goal further on -- not, I think, something intrinsic to the experience. Do you have an example in mind? That would make it clearer for me.